© Reuters/PA Wire Theresa May and Prince Khalid bin Faisal bin Abdulaziz
The British Government signed a secret security pact with Saudi Arabia and is now attempting to prevent details of the deal from being made public.
The Home Secretary Theresa May agreed to the so-called ‘memorandum of understanding’ with her Saudi counter-part Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef during a visit to the Kingdom last year.
The Home Office released no details of her trip at the time or announced that the deal had been signed. The only public acknowledgement was a year later in a Foreign Office report which obliquely referenced an agreement to “modernise the Ministry of the Interior”.
But now following a Freedom of Information request from the Liberal Democrats, who were in Government at the time, it has emerged that the agreement is far wider than has been acknowledged.
In its grounds for refusing to publish details of the memorandum the Home Office has admitted it “contains information relating to the UK’s security co-operation with Saudi Arabia”.
Releasing the document it says “would damage the UK’s bilateral relationship” with the Kingdom and potentially damage Britain’s national security.
The Home Secretary Theresa May agreed to the so-called ‘memorandum of understanding’ with her Saudi counter-part Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef
Human rights groups have expressed alarm at the secretive nature of the deal with a regime which has been condemned for its human rights record.
In February the Kingdom adopted a new anti-terrorism law that defines terrorism as words or actions deemed by the authorities to be directly or indirectly “disturbing” to public order or “destabilizing the security of society.
In March, a series of decrees promulgated by the Interior Ministry extended Saudi Arabia’s extended the definition of further to include “calling for atheist thought” and “contacting any groups or individuals opposed to the Kingdom”, as well as “seeking to disrupt national unity” by calling for protests.
The Ministry of the Interior is also responsible for carrying out executions such as the threatened beheading of Ali Mohammed Baqir al-Nimr for taking part in anti-government protests and allegedly attacking security forces when he was 17. Mr Ali al-Nimr supporters claim he was tortured while in detention.
© Provided by The Independent Prince Khalid bin Faisal bin Abdulaziz welcomes British Prime Minister David Cameron (L) as he arrives in Jeddah on November 6, 2012 (Picture: [copyright])
Both Liberal Democrats and Labour have called for Mrs May to provide details of the deal to Parliament and expressed concern that such an agreement should be done behind closed doors without any public scrutiny.
“Deals with nations like Saudi Arabia should not be done in secret,” said the Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron.
“Parliament should be able to hold ministers to account. It is time to shine a light onto the shady corners of our relationship with Saudi Arabia.”
“It is time we stood up for civil liberties, human rights and not turn a blind eye because the House of Saud are our ‘allies’”.
The emergence of the agreement comes after the Justice Secretary Michael Gove announced he was cancelling a £5.9 million contract to provide a training programme for prisons in the Saudi Arabia.
The contract had attracted widespread criticism but when the cancellation was announced it led to a diplomatic row with the Saudi leadership who threatened to withdraw Saudi ambassador in London pending a review of relations with the UK.
In an attempt to placate the Saudis, David Cameron sent a personal message to King Salman bin Abdul Aziz bin Saud, while the Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond was dispatched to Riyadh to rebuild bridges.
Labour’s Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn said that while Saudi Arabia had undoubtedly provided assistance to Britain in dealing with threats in recent years it had also clamped down on fundamental freedoms, such as free speech.
“Any assistance to their interior ministry needs to be in line with our commitment to human rights worldwide,” he said.
“Given the UK Government's recent decision to pull out of a deal with the Saudi Ministry of Justice on prisons, it is imperative that the FCO and the Home Office provide details on what this MOU with the Saudis involves so Parliament and the public can be assured that it is compliant with our treaty obligations and British values. Ministers should not hide behind the cloak of national security and should instead be open about the nature of this arrangement.
Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen described the memorandum as a “murky deal”.
“We’d like to know what efforts are being made by UK officials to challenge and prevent abuses in Saudi Arabia’s highly abusive justice system?” she said.
“This murky MoU deal was set up shortly after the Saudi Interior Ministry was granted draconian new powers to hold and interrogate terrorism suspects without a lawyer for 90 days. Have Theresa May’s officials ever asked their counterparts to scale back on these excessive powers?
“The UK already has a track record of selling vast quantities of arms to Saudi Arabia while remaining markedly reluctant to publicly criticise Riyadh for its atrocious human rights record.
“With people like the blogger Raif Badawi still languishing in jail and the teenage protester Ali al-Nimr still facing a possible execution, secret deals between the UK and Saudi leave a very bad taste.”
A Home Office spokesman said they could not comment on the memorandum.
An African School in Tanzania built by the President of Uganda, Mr Yoweri Museveni
The village of Muhutwe in Kagera region has a special relationship with Uganda's president, Yoweri Museveni. During his years in exile from Uganda he spent some time at Muhutwe, in the western Tanzania region of Kagera.
 |
| The house where President Museveni lived in the village of Muhutwe. |
He reportedly lived in the house, pictured above, where he rented a small room. My guide during the trip to Muhutwe told me the room was packed with books. The landlord did not know who Museveni was until Museveni returned to the village of Muhutwe as president of Uganda and visited his former residence.
 |
| Nyarigamba Secondary School. |
President Museveni not only decided to build a house for his former landlord, but even decided that two secondary schools should be built in Muleba district: one at Muhutwe, and another one at Kamachumu.
 |
| Nyarigamba Secondary School. |
 |
| Nyarigamba Secondary School. |
 |
| Nyarigamba Secondary School. |
The decision was not received with approval by some Ugandans who complained that President Museveni should have spent that money in Uganda.
According the the Ugandan High Commissioner to Tanzania, Ibrahim Mukiibi, the schools were built as a gesture of friendship from Ugandans to Tanzania for the good job that the Tanzanian army had done in the war that toppled the former ruler, Idi Amin in 1979.
Mr Crispy Kaheru
Uganda is currently undergoing a serious political crisis triggered by the continued contestation of the February 18, 2016 presidential election results by a section of the political actors that participated in that election.
The government, Electoral Commission and the NRM party are contented with the way the election was conducted. On the other hand, the opposition, civil society organisations as well as local and international observers remain dissatisfied with the way the election was managed.
Election observation outfits (with the exception of the African Union and the East African Community [maybe]) have described the conduct of the election as having been inconsistent with the country’s obligation under Article 25 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to hold genuine elections that guarantee the free expression of the will of the voters.
The results of the last presidential election as announced by the Electoral Commission and the decision of the Supreme court have not brought an end to the country’s political contestations; neither have they conferred legitimacy on the outcome of the election in the minds of a significant section of the Ugandan society.
However, this was not entirely new. Ugandans have consistently faced the same political and electoral challenges after each election – especially since 2001.
It is actually regrettable that over the years, similar political and electoral crises have been glossed over, only for the same crises to reoccur on higher scales.
As of today, the events taking place in the country, including the arrests of key opposition figures, incidents of police brutality on ordinary citizens, the ban on the media live coverage of opposition activities and the restrictions imposed on social media, are only representative of a deteriorating political and security situation in the country.
We must appreciate that the current crisis, though electoral in nature, it is deeply rooted in broader political and governance challenges. If not comprehensively addressed, the current political crisis could further lead to a severe fracture in the social fabric of the Ugandan state and thus exacerbate the polarization and possible paralysis of the political and socio-economic system in Uganda.
The existing political stalemate presents Uganda with an opportunity not only to address the historical and political causes of this very prevailing situation, but also with a remarkable chance to discuss and, through a national dialogue and consensus, pave a new political and electoral path for Uganda.
Up until now, a number of stakeholders have recognized the need, and are calling for a people-to-people national conversation as a platform to tackle the escalating tension in the country. This national conversation is, indeed, critical if the country is to move forward.
It is incumbent upon all political actors to ensure that every effort to address the prevailing political challenges in Uganda is through peaceful means. At this moment in time, stakeholders in the electoral process and the citizenry ought to urgently activate a national peace architecture.
This peace infrastructure should rely on existing capacity within our society. Institutions such as the elders’ forum, Inter Religious Council of Uganda (IRCU), the Women Situation Room (WSR), the National Consultative Forum (NCF) and the Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD) should lead processes around an inclusive dialogue – with the aim of addressing the root causes of the current political and electoral crisis.
In countries such as Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Kenya, etc, the role of the international community in internal dialogue processes has been substantive.
Most of the dialogue processes have taken place under the auspices of the international community and regional structures/institutions. Their support in capacity building and expert assistance cannot be underestimated – and, therefore, must be sought.
What the current situation has exposed is the necessity to develop a long-term perspective on sustainable political dialogue for Uganda – either under the auspices of state institutions, or as extraordinary measures.
The author is the coordinator, Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda (CCEDU).
Nb
Indeed back to square one of the Ugandan historic times of the 1960s when about 15 tribal states created what now is an Anglophile Uganda state. M7 does not want to hear all that. He calls it all political chaos that he alone came to mend.
