Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Joel Ssenyonyi did what many never expected. Standing before General. Museveni, and sending a message to Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, top military commanders, and the country's political elite, the Leader of the Opposition could have chosen the easy path. He could have delivered a safe, emotional tribute to the late... Gen. Moses Ali and walked away. Instead, he turned a moment of mourning into a powerful constitutional reminder. Although Joel Ssenyonyi's politics stood in sharp contrast to those of the late Gen. Moses Ali, he put political differences aside to acknowledge his service, leadership, and sacrifices. It was a display of statesmanship that few could criticize. But then came the part that changed the mood in the room. The lawyer in Joel Ssenyonyi took over. With Museveni and CDF Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba listening, he reminded Uganda's leaders that the Constitution is not optional. He stressed that the rule of law must be respected and that no one regardless of rank, office, or military power is above the law. In that moment, this was no longer just a tribute. It became a constitutional challenge delivered straight to the country's most powerful figures. While others chose emotion, Joel chose principle. While others praised the past, Joel confronted the present. His speech wasn't just about honoring a fallen general it was a reminder that the greatest tribute any nation can pay its heroes is to protect the Constitution they swore to defend. For many supporters of the Museveni regime, those words were unlikely to be comfortable. What was expected to be a solemn ceremony became, in my view, a moment of accountability, as the Leader of the Opposition used the national stage to remind Uganda's mis-leaders that power without respect for the Constitution undermines the very foundation of the state. Joel Ssenyonyi didn't simply deliver a tribute. He delivered a message the powerful could not ignore. YouTube -show more

Mordecai Muriisa ™️

46,909 subscribers

83,952 views • 2 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

There is a lot of emptiness in this guy's talk. 🙌 But anyway, he has all reasons to attack Rt Hon. Joel Ssenyonyi and NUP. In the 11th parliament, when Hon. Joel Ssenyonyi was still Cosase chairperson, Hon. Sebamala, who was also a committee member, met with the CEO of a certain entity that was being investigated by Cosase and assured them that if they gave him 500m, he would talk to the chair to hault the investigations. Little did he know that Rt. Hon. Joel Ssenyonyi is not corrupt; he handed him to the Parliament CID department. It was the then-speaker Anita Among that ordered his release. 😅

There is a lot of emptiness in this guy's talk. 🙌 But anyway, he has all reasons to attack Rt Hon. Joel Ssenyonyi and NUP. In the 11th parliament, when Hon. Joel Ssenyonyi was still Cosase chairperson, Hon. Sebamala, who was also a committee member, met with the CEO of a certain entity that was being investigated by Cosase and assured them that if they gave him 500m, he would talk to the chair to hault the investigations. Little did he know that Rt. Hon. Joel Ssenyonyi is not corrupt; he handed him to the Parliament CID department. It was the then-speaker Anita Among that ordered his release. 😅

AIDEN KALIISA

25,215 views • 2 months ago

After threatening to shut down NTV and the Daily Monitor, Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba may have expected fear and silence. Instead, Uganda's most prominent media houses appear to have called his bluff. In what many viewed as a direct challenge to the country's Chief of Defence Forces, NTV's evening news bulletin revisited a series of controversial incidents in which Muhoozi has been accused of openly boasting about kidnappings, illegal detentions and other actions that critics say violate the law. The broadcaster posed a question that is increasingly being asked across the country: Is Muhoozi Kainerugaba above the law? The Daily Monitor has also continued reporting on the controversy despite the threats, setting up a confrontation that many Ugandans never expected to see. For years, critics have accused powerful figures in government of operating with impunity, but now major media institutions appear unwilling to simply look away. The bigger question is what happens next. Will Muhoozi back down from his threats, or will he attempt to act on them? Can a military officer, regardless of rank, decide which media houses are allowed to operate and which ones are not? And what does it say about the state of Uganda when journalists and media organizations find themselves in a public standoff with the country's top military commander? To many observers, this is no longer just a dispute between Muhoozi and the media. It is becoming a test of whether the rule of law still matters, whether freedom of the press can survive political intimidation, and whether powerful individuals can be held accountable for their actions. In this commentary, I examine the growing confrontation between Muhoozi Kainerugaba and Uganda's independent media and what it means for the future of the country. YouTube -

After threatening to shut down NTV and the Daily Monitor, Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba may have expected fear and silence. Instead, Uganda's most prominent media houses appear to have called his bluff. In what many viewed as a direct challenge to the country's Chief of Defence Forces, NTV's evening news bulletin revisited a series of controversial incidents in which Muhoozi has been accused of openly boasting about kidnappings, illegal detentions and other actions that critics say violate the law. The broadcaster posed a question that is increasingly being asked across the country: Is Muhoozi Kainerugaba above the law? The Daily Monitor has also continued reporting on the controversy despite the threats, setting up a confrontation that many Ugandans never expected to see. For years, critics have accused powerful figures in government of operating with impunity, but now major media institutions appear unwilling to simply look away. The bigger question is what happens next. Will Muhoozi back down from his threats, or will he attempt to act on them? Can a military officer, regardless of rank, decide which media houses are allowed to operate and which ones are not? And what does it say about the state of Uganda when journalists and media organizations find themselves in a public standoff with the country's top military commander? To many observers, this is no longer just a dispute between Muhoozi and the media. It is becoming a test of whether the rule of law still matters, whether freedom of the press can survive political intimidation, and whether powerful individuals can be held accountable for their actions. In this commentary, I examine the growing confrontation between Muhoozi Kainerugaba and Uganda's independent media and what it means for the future of the country. YouTube -

Mordecai Muriisa ™️

22,482 views • 3 months ago

I note Prime Minister Andrew Holness’s remarks in a TV interview this morning. Neither he nor his Party has made those proposals as part of the process of constitutional reform. His proposals are therefore not in the report of the Constitutional Reform Committee, and will not be in the new Constitution coming out of that process. Furthermore, Mr. Holness’s proposals are not in the existing Constitution, and would violate the existing Constitution. This is in keeping with his and his Government’s unfortunate history of past violations of the Constitution of Jamaica. It seems that the Prime Minister wants to make up a rule which is not part of the Constitution or laws of Jamaica, to suit his Party’s political fortune at a time when it is waning. He has no power and no authority to do that. He needs to tell the country why his statutory declarations to the Integrity Commission cannot be certified. I am compliant with the Constitution and laws of Jamaica, and I undertake to the People of Jamaica that I will continue to be so.

I note Prime Minister Andrew Holness’s remarks in a TV interview this morning. Neither he nor his Party has made those proposals as part of the process of constitutional reform. His proposals are therefore not in the report of the Constitutional Reform Committee, and will not be in the new Constitution coming out of that process. Furthermore, Mr. Holness’s proposals are not in the existing Constitution, and would violate the existing Constitution. This is in keeping with his and his Government’s unfortunate history of past violations of the Constitution of Jamaica. It seems that the Prime Minister wants to make up a rule which is not part of the Constitution or laws of Jamaica, to suit his Party’s political fortune at a time when it is waning. He has no power and no authority to do that. He needs to tell the country why his statutory declarations to the Integrity Commission cannot be certified. I am compliant with the Constitution and laws of Jamaica, and I undertake to the People of Jamaica that I will continue to be so.

Mark J. Golding

32,129 views • 2 years ago

Mugambi Kiai was a constitutional lawyer, human rights defender and one of the most courageous voices this country has produced. He was part of the generation that gave Kenya the 2010 Constitution, the supreme law that enshrines your right to health, to dignity, to assembly, to a life free from brutality. The greatest tribute we can offer Mugambi is to pick up what he was carrying and refuse to put it down. Rest in power, comrade. #RIPMugambiKiai

Mugambi Kiai was a constitutional lawyer, human rights defender and one of the most courageous voices this country has produced. He was part of the generation that gave Kenya the 2010 Constitution, the supreme law that enshrines your right to health, to dignity, to assembly, to a life free from brutality. The greatest tribute we can offer Mugambi is to pick up what he was carrying and refuse to put it down. Rest in power, comrade. #RIPMugambiKiai

Martha Karua

11,875 views • 6 months ago

LOP Joel Ssenyonyi says the Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026 is intended to frustrate the opposition and will ultimately affect everyone as a consequence. He notes that Ugandans in the diaspora remit about $2.5 billion annually, warning that the proposed law could impact these inflows. #NTVOnTheSpot

LOP Joel Ssenyonyi says the Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026 is intended to frustrate the opposition and will ultimately affect everyone as a consequence. He notes that Ugandans in the diaspora remit about $2.5 billion annually, warning that the proposed law could impact these inflows. #NTVOnTheSpot

NTV UGANDA

11,717 views • 5 months ago

Former CDF and Alliance for National Transformation (ANT) leader Gregory Mugisha Muntu has delivered one of his strongest rebukes yet of CDF Muhoozi Kainerugaba's latest political proposal. Responding to Muhoozi's call to scrap the Office of the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament—a move widely seen as targeting NUP's Joel Ssenyonyi—Muntu did not hold back. "We are in a rotting process where some of the senseless things are happening, like getting rid of the Leader of the Opposition, which is the most idiotic thing," Muntu declared. The explosive remark has now sparked debate across Uganda. Was Muntu simply describing the proposal as "idiotic," or was he effectively calling Muhoozi himself an idiot? Whatever the interpretation, Muntu's comments reflect growing concern over what many see as increasing attacks on democratic institutions and political dissent. In this commentary, I break down Muntu's remarks, examine Muhoozi's proposal to abolish the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, and explore why this latest confrontation has ignited a fresh national debate over the future of Uganda's democracy. YouTube -

Former CDF and Alliance for National Transformation (ANT) leader Gregory Mugisha Muntu has delivered one of his strongest rebukes yet of CDF Muhoozi Kainerugaba's latest political proposal. Responding to Muhoozi's call to scrap the Office of the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament—a move widely seen as targeting NUP's Joel Ssenyonyi—Muntu did not hold back. "We are in a rotting process where some of the senseless things are happening, like getting rid of the Leader of the Opposition, which is the most idiotic thing," Muntu declared. The explosive remark has now sparked debate across Uganda. Was Muntu simply describing the proposal as "idiotic," or was he effectively calling Muhoozi himself an idiot? Whatever the interpretation, Muntu's comments reflect growing concern over what many see as increasing attacks on democratic institutions and political dissent. In this commentary, I break down Muntu's remarks, examine Muhoozi's proposal to abolish the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, and explore why this latest confrontation has ignited a fresh national debate over the future of Uganda's democracy. YouTube -

Mordecai Muriisa ™️

15,684 views • 2 months ago

$1994. Constituent Assembly, Kampala. Akbar Adoko Nekyon paused to speak. He had been Obote's first cousin, a minister in the independence government, a key player in the 1966 crisis that shattered Uganda's first democracy. Now, before a chamber that included President Museveni, the old politician declared, "I have changed." The Maverick's Confession: Nekyon at the Constituent Assembly - 1994 To understand the weight of those words, one had to understand 1966. Nekyon had been a central figure in the UPC/KY alliance that brought Obote to power. He had helped build the very political order that Obote then destroyed, suspending the constitution and attacking the Kabaka's palace. Nekyon had crossed the floor to the Democratic Party after that fracture. Now, nearly three decades later, dressed in a cream Kaunda suit, he sat before the assembly tasked with writing Uganda's new constitution and made a declaration that was both personal and political: The ability to change one's mind is not a weakness but the "highest democratic virtue" and proof of a "living political mind". He then held up a mirror to the room. He listed the political migrations of those who might accuse him of hypocrisy, Vice President Speciosa Wandira Kazibwe, Ruhakana Rugunda, and even President Museveni himself. Change, he argued, was a constant in their political journeys too. By doing so, he dismantled the accusation of inconsistency and reframed the debate. His speech became not a defence of his own record, but a challenge to the entire political class to embrace a system that allowed for peaceful evolution. His tone softened as he concluded, shifting from combatant to elder statesman. His "I have changed" became a plea for a system robust enough to allow such evolution peacefully. The true measure of a democracy, he insisted, was not its ability to enforce orthodoxy but its capacity to tolerate and integrate change. The cream of his suit was a quiet beacon of a principled stand in a room swirling with the new politics of conformity. He had seen it all, independence, crisis, exile, return, and his final message was a warning: A nation that can not accommodate peaceful political change is destined for violent upheaval. What does it mean when an architect of a broken past stands before the builders of a new future and admits he has changed, not as a confession of guilt, but as a demand that the new system must allow others to do the same? Nekyon's 1994 speech was a masterclass in political honesty. He did not ask for forgiveness. He asked for a constitution that made future 1966s impossible. The chamber listened. The words remain. #ughistory Uganda Peoples Congress Official Yoweri K Museveni Parliament Watch Government of Uganda Uganda Media Centre Parliament of Uganda Speciosa Wandira Kazibwe Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda NRM Party Democratic Party Uganda Peoples Congress Official$

1994. Constituent Assembly, Kampala. Akbar Adoko Nekyon paused to speak. He had been Obote's first cousin, a minister in the independence government, a key player in the 1966 crisis that shattered Uganda's first democracy. Now, before a chamber that included President Museveni, the old politician declared, "I have changed." The Maverick's Confession: Nekyon at the Constituent Assembly - 1994 To understand the weight of those words, one had to understand 1966. Nekyon had been a central figure in the UPC/KY alliance that brought Obote to power. He had helped build the very political order that Obote then destroyed, suspending the constitution and attacking the Kabaka's palace. Nekyon had crossed the floor to the Democratic Party after that fracture. Now, nearly three decades later, dressed in a cream Kaunda suit, he sat before the assembly tasked with writing Uganda's new constitution and made a declaration that was both personal and political: The ability to change one's mind is not a weakness but the "highest democratic virtue" and proof of a "living political mind". He then held up a mirror to the room. He listed the political migrations of those who might accuse him of hypocrisy, Vice President Speciosa Wandira Kazibwe, Ruhakana Rugunda, and even President Museveni himself. Change, he argued, was a constant in their political journeys too. By doing so, he dismantled the accusation of inconsistency and reframed the debate. His speech became not a defence of his own record, but a challenge to the entire political class to embrace a system that allowed for peaceful evolution. His tone softened as he concluded, shifting from combatant to elder statesman. His "I have changed" became a plea for a system robust enough to allow such evolution peacefully. The true measure of a democracy, he insisted, was not its ability to enforce orthodoxy but its capacity to tolerate and integrate change. The cream of his suit was a quiet beacon of a principled stand in a room swirling with the new politics of conformity. He had seen it all, independence, crisis, exile, return, and his final message was a warning: A nation that can not accommodate peaceful political change is destined for violent upheaval. What does it mean when an architect of a broken past stands before the builders of a new future and admits he has changed, not as a confession of guilt, but as a demand that the new system must allow others to do the same? Nekyon's 1994 speech was a masterclass in political honesty. He did not ask for forgiveness. He asked for a constitution that made future 1966s impossible. The chamber listened. The words remain. #ughistory Uganda Peoples Congress Official Yoweri K Museveni Parliament Watch Government of Uganda Uganda Media Centre Parliament of Uganda Speciosa Wandira Kazibwe Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda NRM Party Democratic Party Uganda Peoples Congress Official

UgHistory

22,015 views • 3 months ago

"Until today Julius Malema still doesn't see what he did, what danger it posed and what its consequences could have been, his position as a public leader and a role model to the young and to society the fact that he's a lawmaker breaking the law" State prosecutor Adv Joel Cesar "The fact that two firearms were used and live ammunition was fired not once like in the Oscar Pistorius not twice but multiple times" Adv Joel Cesar

"Until today Julius Malema still doesn't see what he did, what danger it posed and what its consequences could have been, his position as a public leader and a role model to the young and to society the fact that he's a lawmaker breaking the law" State prosecutor Adv Joel Cesar "The fact that two firearms were used and live ammunition was fired not once like in the Oscar Pistorius not twice but multiple times" Adv Joel Cesar

News Live SA

27,573 views • 5 months ago

LOP Joel Ssenyonyi, a member of the Appointments Committee, has said that Minister of Education and Sports Janet Kataaha Museveni is not yet a full minister and is not expected to take oath until she appears before the committee for vetting. #NTVNews

LOP Joel Ssenyonyi, a member of the Appointments Committee, has said that Minister of Education and Sports Janet Kataaha Museveni is not yet a full minister and is not expected to take oath until she appears before the committee for vetting. #NTVNews

NTV UGANDA

76,017 views • 3 months ago

1994. Parliament Lobby. Kampala. The Constituent Assembly was debating the shape of a new Uganda when a young army captain, Noble Mayombo, rose to move a motion. It was a small thing, on paper: Change the name of the national army. But Mayombo understood that names carry power. The Name and the Man: Mayombo's Motion for the UPDF - 1994 "This is no longer the army of a resistance," he told his fellow delegates. "It must be the defence force of a people." The motion was simple in phrasing but profound in meaning: That the National Resistance Army, born of the bush war, be renamed the Uganda People's Defence Forces. Mayombo reminded the Assembly that while the NRA had fought valiantly, it belonged to a chapter of struggle. A constitution, he argued, must speak for all citizens, not for a movement. The army's name had to project neutrality, professionalism, and national ownership. Mayombo's words carried weight beyond his years. He had fought in the bush, but he understood that the new constitution was meant to bury the divisions of the past and build a common future. By proposing the name change, he was not merely editing a document; He was redefining the relationship between the soldier and the citizen. The word "People's" was not cosmetic but constitutional, a signal that the guns were now bound by law, accountable to Ugandans rather than to a party. Outside the chamber, in the Parliament lobby, seasoned journalist Bart Kakooza intercepted Mayombo for an interview. Standing tall, the young captain repeated the essence of his argument into Kakooza's microphone. Through radio and newspapers, his vision reached far beyond Kampala. For many Ugandans, that was the first time they heard the phrase Uganda People's Defence Forces. It carried a freshness that suggested rebirth, a shift from partisan struggle to shared nationhood. When the Assembly finally voted and Article 208 enshrined the UPDF in the 1995 Constitution, the moment was sealed. The NRA passed into history, and the UPDF was born in law. For Noble Mayombo, it was more than a legal victory; it was his signature contribution to the republic. The image endures: A young man in Parliament, moving a motion with conviction, then stepping into the lobby to explain to a journalist, and to the nation, why Uganda's army must belong to the people. Mayombo's motion ensured that the army would no longer be the instrument of a movement, but the shield of a nation. It was not just semantics. It was a declaration that Uganda had moved from revolution to constitution, from the bullet to the ballot. The name change may have been a small clause in a long document, but it was the mark of a mind that understood that the words you choose determine the nation you build. What does it take to stand up in an assembly of elders and veterans and suggest that the revolution's army should be renamed for the people it serves? Noble Mayombo was a young captain when he moved that motion. He understood that constitutions are not just about power, they are about identity, and the names we give our institutions define the country we become. The NRA won the war. The UPDF was built to keep the peace. #UPDF #NRA #Ughistory NRM Party Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF) Government of Uganda Bart Kakooza Uganda Media Centre

1994. Parliament Lobby. Kampala. The Constituent Assembly was debating the shape of a new Uganda when a young army captain, Noble Mayombo, rose to move a motion. It was a small thing, on paper: Change the name of the national army. But Mayombo understood that names carry power. The Name and the Man: Mayombo's Motion for the UPDF - 1994 "This is no longer the army of a resistance," he told his fellow delegates. "It must be the defence force of a people." The motion was simple in phrasing but profound in meaning: That the National Resistance Army, born of the bush war, be renamed the Uganda People's Defence Forces. Mayombo reminded the Assembly that while the NRA had fought valiantly, it belonged to a chapter of struggle. A constitution, he argued, must speak for all citizens, not for a movement. The army's name had to project neutrality, professionalism, and national ownership. Mayombo's words carried weight beyond his years. He had fought in the bush, but he understood that the new constitution was meant to bury the divisions of the past and build a common future. By proposing the name change, he was not merely editing a document; He was redefining the relationship between the soldier and the citizen. The word "People's" was not cosmetic but constitutional, a signal that the guns were now bound by law, accountable to Ugandans rather than to a party. Outside the chamber, in the Parliament lobby, seasoned journalist Bart Kakooza intercepted Mayombo for an interview. Standing tall, the young captain repeated the essence of his argument into Kakooza's microphone. Through radio and newspapers, his vision reached far beyond Kampala. For many Ugandans, that was the first time they heard the phrase Uganda People's Defence Forces. It carried a freshness that suggested rebirth, a shift from partisan struggle to shared nationhood. When the Assembly finally voted and Article 208 enshrined the UPDF in the 1995 Constitution, the moment was sealed. The NRA passed into history, and the UPDF was born in law. For Noble Mayombo, it was more than a legal victory; it was his signature contribution to the republic. The image endures: A young man in Parliament, moving a motion with conviction, then stepping into the lobby to explain to a journalist, and to the nation, why Uganda's army must belong to the people. Mayombo's motion ensured that the army would no longer be the instrument of a movement, but the shield of a nation. It was not just semantics. It was a declaration that Uganda had moved from revolution to constitution, from the bullet to the ballot. The name change may have been a small clause in a long document, but it was the mark of a mind that understood that the words you choose determine the nation you build. What does it take to stand up in an assembly of elders and veterans and suggest that the revolution's army should be renamed for the people it serves? Noble Mayombo was a young captain when he moved that motion. He understood that constitutions are not just about power, they are about identity, and the names we give our institutions define the country we become. The NRA won the war. The UPDF was built to keep the peace. #UPDF #NRA #Ughistory NRM Party Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF) Government of Uganda Bart Kakooza Uganda Media Centre

UgHistory

13,021 views • 3 months ago

The prophet who wiped away God’s tears. Moses was not only a liberator. Scripture says he spoke with God face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. But ancient accounts tell that one day he was brought to witness something no other man had ever seen. He was not called to receive commands nor to hear laws. He was taken to the place where heaven watches humanity. He expected judgment. He expected condemnation. But what he found took his breath away. He saw God looking upon the world in a silence heavier than any word. It was not a silence of anger. It was the silence of deep sorrow. Humanity was drifting away, and the divine heart felt it. Then Moses understood something few have ever grasped before. There was a love that suffers. That day, Moses did not see only the power of God. He witnessed his sorrow and became the prophet who, through his faithfulness, wiped away the tears of the creator. That is why he spoke with God as a friend.

The prophet who wiped away God’s tears. Moses was not only a liberator. Scripture says he spoke with God face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. But ancient accounts tell that one day he was brought to witness something no other man had ever seen. He was not called to receive commands nor to hear laws. He was taken to the place where heaven watches humanity. He expected judgment. He expected condemnation. But what he found took his breath away. He saw God looking upon the world in a silence heavier than any word. It was not a silence of anger. It was the silence of deep sorrow. Humanity was drifting away, and the divine heart felt it. Then Moses understood something few have ever grasped before. There was a love that suffers. That day, Moses did not see only the power of God. He witnessed his sorrow and became the prophet who, through his faithfulness, wiped away the tears of the creator. That is why he spoke with God as a friend.

NancyH

44,901 views • 5 months ago

The LOP in Parliament Of Uganda Joel Ssenyonyi has asked the committee on legal and parliamentary affairs to dismiss the Protection of Sovereignty Bill in its entirety. He argues that the bill is a threat to political pluralism, economic survival & the right for Ugandans to citizens.

The LOP in Parliament Of Uganda Joel Ssenyonyi has asked the committee on legal and parliamentary affairs to dismiss the Protection of Sovereignty Bill in its entirety. He argues that the bill is a threat to political pluralism, economic survival & the right for Ugandans to citizens.

Solomon Serwanjja

20,070 views • 5 months ago

A Government of National Unity (GNU) is formed by a majority party (a party with 50+1), not by a minority party such as the ANC is now. (What Ramaphosa proposed is an ANC-DA Backdoor Coalition, NOT a GNU). When, on the evening of the 2nd of May 1994, President Nelson Mandela delivered his victory speech to a cheering crowd in the Carlton Hotel’s Grand Ballroom, announcing that he had won the election and would be South Africa's next President, he was unequivocally clear that the GNU was called by the ANC as the MAJORITY party. I know exactly what the situation was, and what he said. I was there, and as then National Spokesperson of the ANC, I worked with him on that speech before he stepped to the podium to deliver it. Here is the link to the full text of the victory speech that Madiba delivered: (This a transcript of the audio recording of the speech that President Mandela delivered. The original text of the speech that we prepared, and as I have typed it out for him, together with the corrections and additions that he made with a red pen, is in the archives of the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory).

A Government of National Unity (GNU) is formed by a majority party (a party with 50+1), not by a minority party such as the ANC is now. (What Ramaphosa proposed is an ANC-DA Backdoor Coalition, NOT a GNU). When, on the evening of the 2nd of May 1994, President Nelson Mandela delivered his victory speech to a cheering crowd in the Carlton Hotel’s Grand Ballroom, announcing that he had won the election and would be South Africa's next President, he was unequivocally clear that the GNU was called by the ANC as the MAJORITY party. I know exactly what the situation was, and what he said. I was there, and as then National Spokesperson of the ANC, I worked with him on that speech before he stepped to the podium to deliver it. Here is the link to the full text of the victory speech that Madiba delivered: (This a transcript of the audio recording of the speech that President Mandela delivered. The original text of the speech that we prepared, and as I have typed it out for him, together with the corrections and additions that he made with a red pen, is in the archives of the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory).

Carl Niehaus

105,899 views • 2 years ago

🚨 TRUMP DECLARES WAR ON POLITICAL FRAUD President Trump just delivered one of the most explosive law-and-order speeches of his presidency. He vowed to pursue and imprison any politician or public official involved in fraud — calling out the corruption that has “looted and pillaged” America. And in a moment that stunned the room, he named Ilhan Omar directly, using her as a symbol of what he says is a broken and exploited system. This was not subtle. This was not diplomatic. It was a warning. Trump is signaling that: • public office will no longer be a shield • political status will not protect fraud • and the era of immunity is ending Whether you love him or hate him, the message was unmistakable: The gloves are off. Washington just felt a shockwave.

🚨 TRUMP DECLARES WAR ON POLITICAL FRAUD President Trump just delivered one of the most explosive law-and-order speeches of his presidency. He vowed to pursue and imprison any politician or public official involved in fraud — calling out the corruption that has “looted and pillaged” America. And in a moment that stunned the room, he named Ilhan Omar directly, using her as a symbol of what he says is a broken and exploited system. This was not subtle. This was not diplomatic. It was a warning. Trump is signaling that: • public office will no longer be a shield • political status will not protect fraud • and the era of immunity is ending Whether you love him or hate him, the message was unmistakable: The gloves are off. Washington just felt a shockwave.

Jim Ferguson

21,852 views • 8 months ago

Leader of the Opposition, Joel Ssenyonyi, says bringing back the current facilitation is only a first step, stressing that UGX 1 million in net pay is not enough to match the rising cost of living and the demanding working conditions of medical interns.

Leader of the Opposition, Joel Ssenyonyi, says bringing back the current facilitation is only a first step, stressing that UGX 1 million in net pay is not enough to match the rising cost of living and the demanding working conditions of medical interns.

PIUS JADWAR

12,559 views • 1 month ago

At the Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy, Bobi Wine did not merely deliver a speech — he launched a political thunderbolt. Standing virtually before an international audience, Wine — who insists he rightfully won Uganda’s 2026 elections but was robbed through what he describes as blatant electoral fraud — turned the spotlight not only on Yoweri Museveni but also on the West itself. In a charged and uncompromising address, he accused Western governments of enabling and legitimizing an repressive regime. With unmistakable urgency, Wine called for sweeping sanctions against Museveni, his son Muhoozi Kainerugaba, and a network of enablers sustaining this systemic oppression in Uganda. He warned that failing to hold the regime accountable for these atrocities would not simply endanger Ugandans, but could embolden what he characterized as a culture of impunity to spread beyond the country’s borders. The world, he cautioned, must act now — not when it is too late. Adding to the drama of the moment, Wine addressed the summit while still in hiding following a post-election raid that culminated in a failed attempt to arrest him. Despite the uncertainty surrounding his own safety, his message was defiant: Uganda’s freedom, he declared, is not a distant dream but an approaching reality. YouTube -

At the Geneva Summit for Human Rights and Democracy, Bobi Wine did not merely deliver a speech — he launched a political thunderbolt. Standing virtually before an international audience, Wine — who insists he rightfully won Uganda’s 2026 elections but was robbed through what he describes as blatant electoral fraud — turned the spotlight not only on Yoweri Museveni but also on the West itself. In a charged and uncompromising address, he accused Western governments of enabling and legitimizing an repressive regime. With unmistakable urgency, Wine called for sweeping sanctions against Museveni, his son Muhoozi Kainerugaba, and a network of enablers sustaining this systemic oppression in Uganda. He warned that failing to hold the regime accountable for these atrocities would not simply endanger Ugandans, but could embolden what he characterized as a culture of impunity to spread beyond the country’s borders. The world, he cautioned, must act now — not when it is too late. Adding to the drama of the moment, Wine addressed the summit while still in hiding following a post-election raid that culminated in a failed attempt to arrest him. Despite the uncertainty surrounding his own safety, his message was defiant: Uganda’s freedom, he declared, is not a distant dream but an approaching reality. YouTube -

Mordecai Muriisa ™️

12,727 views • 7 months ago

Twelve years ago, Jeffrey A Tucker was convinced he had nothing to learn from a farmer. Today he believes that Joel Salatin is “all the things that Thomas Jefferson was”: “I stood back in the back as [Joel Salatin] began to talk, and he was railing against the way animals are raised and against the way they're slaughtered and the American food supply. I remember he would say things like: ‘we need to rediscover the chickenness of the chicken’… and this kind of stuff. I didn’t know what this guy's even talking about. Why is this guy even speaking? I couldn't understand it. Now, I'm all in. I just love it. …He reminds me of Thomas Jefferson. He was a great architect—and Joel Salatin is also an architect—kind of a scientist in a way, a great philosopher and writer, but also a farmer. That's what Joel is. He's all the things that Thomas Jefferson was.”

Twelve years ago, Jeffrey A Tucker was convinced he had nothing to learn from a farmer. Today he believes that Joel Salatin is “all the things that Thomas Jefferson was”: “I stood back in the back as [Joel Salatin] began to talk, and he was railing against the way animals are raised and against the way they're slaughtered and the American food supply. I remember he would say things like: ‘we need to rediscover the chickenness of the chicken’… and this kind of stuff. I didn’t know what this guy's even talking about. Why is this guy even speaking? I couldn't understand it. Now, I'm all in. I just love it. …He reminds me of Thomas Jefferson. He was a great architect—and Joel Salatin is also an architect—kind of a scientist in a way, a great philosopher and writer, but also a farmer. That's what Joel is. He's all the things that Thomas Jefferson was.”

Jan Jekielek

34,349 views • 10 months ago

The apartheid story depends on one rule. An Arab who lives here is allowed to speak only if he curses the country that gave him a passport, a court, and a life his cousins across the border will never have. The moment he refuses that script, he is treated as a traitor instead of a witness. Ali Shaa’ban Ali Shaa’ban is a son of the Galilee, of the Carmel, of Jaffa and Nazareth. He is not a think-tank Arab and he is not performing for a Western campus. He is saying out loud what the propaganda cannot survive… that supporting Israel was not a betrayal of his identity, it was loyalty to his conscience. He looks around and sees a homeland and a law that protects him. He looks at the rest of the Arab world and sees regimes and customs that kill their own children in the name of honor, religion, and politics. Then he asks the only question that matters. What shame is there in choosing the first of those two lives? That is why voices like his are hunted. Not because they are rare curiosities, but because they collapse the whole moral theater. You do not need to hate Jews every morning to be an Arab. You do not need to raise your children on a funeral. You need the courage to say that life is better than the cult of death, and that Israel is the place where that choice is still legal. Ali Shaa’ban represents the best of humanity. The best of a truth too few want to see. He already said it. The video is the exhibit.

The apartheid story depends on one rule. An Arab who lives here is allowed to speak only if he curses the country that gave him a passport, a court, and a life his cousins across the border will never have. The moment he refuses that script, he is treated as a traitor instead of a witness. Ali Shaa’ban Ali Shaa’ban is a son of the Galilee, of the Carmel, of Jaffa and Nazareth. He is not a think-tank Arab and he is not performing for a Western campus. He is saying out loud what the propaganda cannot survive… that supporting Israel was not a betrayal of his identity, it was loyalty to his conscience. He looks around and sees a homeland and a law that protects him. He looks at the rest of the Arab world and sees regimes and customs that kill their own children in the name of honor, religion, and politics. Then he asks the only question that matters. What shame is there in choosing the first of those two lives? That is why voices like his are hunted. Not because they are rare curiosities, but because they collapse the whole moral theater. You do not need to hate Jews every morning to be an Arab. You do not need to raise your children on a funeral. You need the courage to say that life is better than the cult of death, and that Israel is the place where that choice is still legal. Ali Shaa’ban represents the best of humanity. The best of a truth too few want to see. He already said it. The video is the exhibit.

Mor Edge Insight

12,026 views • 3 days ago

Reverend Dr Kupa Mtata, convenor of Sungano yeVanhu/Ubumbano loMphakathi (The People’s Coalition), has defended the coalition’s campaign against Constitutional Amendment No. 3, arguing that the proposed changes cannot lawfully proceed without the direct consent of Zimbabweans through a referendum. Speaking at the launch of the coalition—which brings together the Defend the Constitution Platform (DCP), Constitution Defence Forum (CDF), National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), Zimbabwe Constitution Movement (ZICOMO) and the War Veterans Pressure Group—Dr Mtata said the campaign was about defending the Constitution rather than supporting any political party. “I am here as a churchman, not as a partisan politician,” he said. “This is about honouring the agreement we made together as a nation and ensuring that the Constitution remains supreme, not the ambitions of politicians.” Dr Mtata argued that the Constitution is a covenant created collectively by Zimbabweans and that no individual or group has the authority to alter key provisions without the people’s genuine consent. He accused the government of violating the Constitution in four fundamental ways. First, he said there had been a procedural violation because citizens were not genuinely consulted on the proposed amendments. Instead of allowing open national debate, he said, the proposals were presented through state-controlled media as decisions that citizens were simply expected to accept, while opposing views were denied space. “This is not consultation,” he said. “This is propaganda.” Secondly, Mtata alleged that Parliament had been corrupted, claiming some legislators had abandoned the interests of their constituents for personal gain. “When parliamentarians are bought like goods in a market, that is not leadership. That is corruption,” he said, arguing that MPs who ignore the wishes of those who elected them lose their moral legitimacy to represent the people. His third concern was what he described as intimidation and harassment of citizens who opposed the Bill. According to Mtata, individuals who criticised the proposed amendments had been threatened or intimidated, undermining freedom of expression and weakening democracy. “When people are denied the right to express opinions that differ from those in power, that is not democracy. That is dictatorship,” he said. Mtata argued that Constitutional Amendment No. 3 unlawfully bypasses the referendum requirement contained in Section 328 of the Constitution. He said the Constitution expressly requires certain amendments to be approved directly by citizens through a referendum, particularly where changes affect the tenure or powers of those already in office. “The people, not Parliament, not politicians—must decide through a referendum,” he said. “Those entrusted with power should not extend their stay in office without the direct permission of the people.” Mtata concluded by urging Zimbabweans to defend the Constitution, insisting that the country’s founding law belongs to its citizens and cannot be changed without their freely given consent.

Reverend Dr Kupa Mtata, convenor of Sungano yeVanhu/Ubumbano loMphakathi (The People’s Coalition), has defended the coalition’s campaign against Constitutional Amendment No. 3, arguing that the proposed changes cannot lawfully proceed without the direct consent of Zimbabweans through a referendum. Speaking at the launch of the coalition—which brings together the Defend the Constitution Platform (DCP), Constitution Defence Forum (CDF), National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), Zimbabwe Constitution Movement (ZICOMO) and the War Veterans Pressure Group—Dr Mtata said the campaign was about defending the Constitution rather than supporting any political party. “I am here as a churchman, not as a partisan politician,” he said. “This is about honouring the agreement we made together as a nation and ensuring that the Constitution remains supreme, not the ambitions of politicians.” Dr Mtata argued that the Constitution is a covenant created collectively by Zimbabweans and that no individual or group has the authority to alter key provisions without the people’s genuine consent. He accused the government of violating the Constitution in four fundamental ways. First, he said there had been a procedural violation because citizens were not genuinely consulted on the proposed amendments. Instead of allowing open national debate, he said, the proposals were presented through state-controlled media as decisions that citizens were simply expected to accept, while opposing views were denied space. “This is not consultation,” he said. “This is propaganda.” Secondly, Mtata alleged that Parliament had been corrupted, claiming some legislators had abandoned the interests of their constituents for personal gain. “When parliamentarians are bought like goods in a market, that is not leadership. That is corruption,” he said, arguing that MPs who ignore the wishes of those who elected them lose their moral legitimacy to represent the people. His third concern was what he described as intimidation and harassment of citizens who opposed the Bill. According to Mtata, individuals who criticised the proposed amendments had been threatened or intimidated, undermining freedom of expression and weakening democracy. “When people are denied the right to express opinions that differ from those in power, that is not democracy. That is dictatorship,” he said. Mtata argued that Constitutional Amendment No. 3 unlawfully bypasses the referendum requirement contained in Section 328 of the Constitution. He said the Constitution expressly requires certain amendments to be approved directly by citizens through a referendum, particularly where changes affect the tenure or powers of those already in office. “The people, not Parliament, not politicians—must decide through a referendum,” he said. “Those entrusted with power should not extend their stay in office without the direct permission of the people.” Mtata concluded by urging Zimbabweans to defend the Constitution, insisting that the country’s founding law belongs to its citizens and cannot be changed without their freely given consent.

Hopewell Chin’ono

47,580 views • 2 months ago