enenlegalworld

Author: ambrosenen

  • Untitled post 35

    A Moment of Reckoning: The Constitutional Crisis and Rise of Dictatorship at the Uganda Law Society



    The sudden expulsion of Isaac Ssemakadde as President of the Uganda Law Society (ULS) has triggered intense reflection within Uganda’s legal fraternity. This controversial move raises profound questions about the legality of his removal, the ethical implications of his leadership style, and the broader institutional challenges facing the ULS. At its core, the situation reveals tensions between professionalism, governance, and the external pressures that shape such decisions.

    This moment is a reckoning for the ULS, a professional body tasked with safeguarding the rule of law and justice. How the society navigates this crisis will define its integrity, independence, and democratic principles moving forward.


    —

    I. The Controversial Leadership of Isaac Ssemakadde

    Isaac Ssemakadde’s tenure at the ULS was marked by bold decisions aimed at reforming the society and addressing systemic flaws in Uganda’s justice system. Key actions included:

    1. Expelling the Attorney General: Ssemakadde removed Kiryowa Kiwanuka from the ULS Council, citing conflicts of interest. This unprecedented move disrupted long-standing traditions and relationships within the society.


    2. Recalling Representatives to Statutory Bodies: He withdrew ULS representatives from critical bodies, including the Judicial Service Commission, in an attempt to enhance institutional independence.
    3. Suspending the CEO: The suspension of Mable, the ULS CEO, highlighted internal divisions and polarized opinions, with some viewing it as necessary reform and others as overreach.

    While Ssemakadde’s leadership won praise for its courage in challenging entrenched power dynamics, it also made him a target for criticism and possible retaliation from powerful actors within and outside the legal profession.


    —

    II. Legal Questions Surrounding the Expulsion

    An Elected Leader Ousted by a Council

    Ssemakadde’s expulsion by the ULS Council has raised significant legal concerns. The Uganda Law Society Act grants the General Assembly the exclusive authority to remove an elected president. The process requires:

    Clear evidence of misconduct or violations of the society’s rules.

    Adherence to procedural safeguards, including a transparent and fair hearing.

    Validation of the decision through a vote at an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM).


    The Council’s unilateral decision to expel Ssemakadde appears to bypass these procedural requirements, making the legality of the move questionable. If these steps were disregarded, the expulsion undermines the democratic framework upon which the ULS is built.

    III. Backlash to Ssemakadde’s Leadership and Style

    A Provocative Communicator

    Ssemakadde’s outspoken rhetoric, particularly his comments targeting public figures like Attorney General Kiwanuka and DPP Jane Frances Abodo, drew sharp criticism. While his critiques focused on systemic flaws—pretrial detention, judicial delays, and military trials of civilians—his use of provocative language became a point of contention, overshadowing the substance of his arguments.

    Critics accused Ssemakadde of damaging the dignity of his office, while his supporters argued that his tone was a reflection of the urgency of the issues he sought to address. This clash highlights the perennial debate between decorum and the need for robust critique in professional settings.

    IV. External Pressures and the Role of Politics

    Political Interference or Internal Coup?

    Many believe that Ssemakadde’s expulsion was influenced by external forces threatened by his reformist agenda. His removal of Kiwanuka and his vocal criticism of systemic injustices disrupted established power structures and may have provoked retaliation from influential political actors.

    If external actors influenced the Council’s decision, this represents a troubling erosion of the ULS’s independence. Such interference would compromise the society’s ability to fulfill its role as a defender of the rule of law.

    Risk to Institutional Integrity

    The expulsion of an elected leader under such circumstances sets a dangerous precedent, potentially transforming the ULS from an independent professional body into a tool for political agendas.


    —

    V. A Leadership Void and the Imposition of a Dictatorship

    The expulsion of Ssemakadde has created a leadership vacuum, which the ULS Council has sought to address by appointing a caretaker committee headed by Secretary General Philip Munaabi. This decision has raised additional concerns:

    1. Unelected Leadership: By assuming presidential powers without a vote, Munaabi effectively becomes an unelected president. This undermines the democratic principles of the ULS.


    2. No Electoral Roadmap: The Council has provided no timeline or procedure for electing a new president, leaving Munaabi in a powerful position indefinitely. This risks turning an interim measure into a de facto dictatorship for the remainder of Ssemakadde’s term.


    3. Concentration of Power: Combining the roles of Secretary General and acting president consolidates executive and administrative authority in one individual, reducing oversight and accountability.



    These developments highlight the urgent need for transparency and adherence to democratic processes within the ULS.


    VI. A Call to Action for the ULS Membership

    The current crisis presents an opportunity for ULS members to reclaim their society’s integrity and independence. Key steps include:

    1. Demanding Transparency: Members must call for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to review the legality of Ssemakadde’s expulsion and chart a clear roadmap for electing new leadership.


    2. Safeguarding Democracy: The society must restore its democratic processes to prevent unelected officials from wielding unchecked power.


    3. Focusing on Systemic Issues: The legal fraternity must address the substantive critiques raised by Ssemakadde, including delays in justice, pretrial detention, and military trials of civilians.


    4. Resisting Political Interference: The ULS must reaffirm its independence and ensure that decisions are made transparently and without external influence.




    —

    VII. Conclusion: A Defining Moment for the ULS

    The expulsion of Isaac Ssemakadde is a watershed moment for the Uganda Law Society. It has exposed tensions between leadership, legality, and politics, while raising critical questions about the society’s commitment to democracy and justice. While Ssemakadde’s provocative style remains polarizing, the issues he championed—access to justice, constitutionalism, and the rule of law—are too important to ignore.

    For the ULS, this is a moment of reckoning. The society must act decisively to restore transparency, accountability, and democratic integrity. Silence is not an option; the legal fraternity must speak up and ensure that this crisis becomes a turning point for the rule of law in Uganda.

    About the author.

    The author is an Advocate of the Ugandan Courts of Judicature, currently at, M/S Okurut-Magara Associated Advocates, Adjumani.  He is a Rule of Law pundit who firmly believes that without the Rule of Law, Lawyers will become unemployed and society will regress backwards towards anarchy.

    Contact us:

    Mobile: +256789856805

    Email: ambrosenen@gmail.com

    DISCLAIMER; This blog is for public awareness and general information purposes. The contents here in are not intended to serve as legal guidance. The author accepts no liability for injuries, legal or otherwise arising or connected with use of legal information in this blog.

    Readers are encouraged to consult qualified attorneys in their areas of Jurisdiction for situation specific legal advice and courses of action.

  • In the Kingdom of Truth, Context is King: Reflecting on Isaac Ssemakade’s Controversial Speech

    In the Kingdom of Truth, Context is King: Reflecting on Isaac Ssemakade’s Controversial Speech

    Isaac Ssemakade, President of the Uganda Law Society (ULS), recently delivered a speech that has sparked intense debate. While his use of vulgarities to critique figures like the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Hon. Jane Frances Abodo, and the Attorney General, Hon. Kiryowa Kiwanuka, has drawn public condemnation, this controversy risks overshadowing the broader issues he sought to address. His message about systemic injustices in Uganda’s legal system—issues like pretrial detention, delayed prosecutions, and military trials of civilians—deserves attention. In unpacking this moment, it is crucial to recall that in the “kingdom of truth, context is king.”

    Focusing on the Message, Not Just the Words

    Ssemakade’s critique targeted deeply entrenched challenges within Uganda’s justice system:

    1. Pretrial Detention: Thousands of detainees languish in prison for years without trial, violating constitutional guarantees of a speedy trial.

    2. Judicial Delays: Case backlogs deny justice to victims and accused persons alike, eroding public trust in the system.

    3. Military Jurisdiction over Civilians: The controversial trial of civilians in military courts, like the case of Olivia Lutaaya, highlights concerns about due process and judicial overreach.

    These systemic flaws, while acknowledged in policy circles, rarely command the public attention they deserve. By focusing on Ssemakade’s language alone, public discourse risks obscuring these urgent issues.

    The Role of Context in Understanding Criticism

    The phrase “in the kingdom of truth, context is king” underscores the importance of evaluating any message holistically. Ssemakade’s speech must be understood as a critique of institutional failures rather than reduced to its most inflammatory soundbites. Selective outrage over language often serves as a distraction from the uncomfortable truths a message may carry.

    Figures like Malcolm X have historically defended the use of provocative rhetoric to challenge systemic injustice, arguing that “wrong is wrong” regardless of how it is presented. Similarly, George Orwell warned against letting a focus on tone overshadow the substance of critique. Context invites us to balance the discomfort of delivery with the urgency of the underlying message.

    A Call to Public Officials: Embrace the Message

    The backlash against Ssemakade’s speech, led by groups like FIDA-Uganda and the Uganda Association of Public Prosecutors (UAPP), has centered on the perceived disrespect in his language. While such critiques are valid, they should not detract from the pressing need for institutional reform. Public officials, particularly those named in the speech, must demonstrate leadership by engaging with the issues raised rather than dismissing them due to the tone of delivery.

    This moment presents an opportunity for public officials to:

    Acknowledge the Truths: Address the systemic challenges of delayed justice, pretrial detention, and questionable jurisdiction practices.

    Foster Dialogue: Open avenues for constructive critique, recognizing that even uncomfortable speech can highlight areas for improvement.

    Model Resilience: Show the public that institutions can embrace feedback, however harsh, in the interest of justice.

    Conclusion: Context Is King

    Isaac Ssemakade’s controversial remarks have sparked a necessary conversation about justice in Uganda. While the offensive language used in his speech warrants an apology, this moment must not be reduced to outrage over tone. The systemic failures he highlighted affect thousands of lives and demand immediate attention.

    Public officials and civil society must shift the focus from style to substance, drawing lessons from global thinkers like Malcolm X and Orwell, who remind us that truth often arrives wrapped in discomfort. In the kingdom of truth, context reigns supreme—and justice cannot afford to lose sight of it.

    About the author.

    The author is an Advocate of the Ugandan Courts of Judicature, currently at M/S Okurut-Magara Associated Advocates, Adjumani. He is passionate about the Rule of Law, Constitutionalism, Human Rights, Democracy and access to Justice. He hopes that through write ups like this, civic engagement can find its rightful place in shaping public discourse and influence policy change for the better good.

    DISCLAIMER: Any references to legal underpinings are purely for informational and public discourse purposes and not intended to serve as legal advice. Readers of this content are strongly advised to seek the Counsel of qualified attorneys for situation specific legal advice and legal services.

    Contact us:

    Mobile: +256789856805

    Email: ambrosenen@gmail.com

  • U.S Senator Urges Uganda to Stand Firm Against Western Demands on Anti-Homosexuality Law

    By Mourice Muhoozi United States law maker, Tim Walberg has sternly encouraged Ugandan leaders to resist U.S and Western pressure to roll back the Anti-Homosexuality law. Every once in a while, the right in the U.S. cannot help but look longingly at countries where repression of LGBTQ is a matter of law. But Tim Walberg, a […]

    U.S Senator Urges Uganda to Stand Firm Against Western Demands on Anti-Homosexuality Law
  • Revisiting Free Speech, Professional Ethics, and Gender Sensitivity in Uganda: A Legal and Social Analysis

    Revisiting Free Speech, Professional Ethics, and Gender Sensitivity in Uganda: A Legal and Social Analysis



    Isaac Semakade’s recent remarks about senior public officials have ignited intense debate on free speech, vulgarity, and the ethical responsibilities of professionals. While organizations like the Uganda Association of Public Prosecutors (UAPP) and FIDA-Uganda have condemned his language and demanded an apology, others argue that his statements are a reflection of justified frustration with Uganda’s systemic issues. This discourse raises critical legal, ethical, and societal questions.



    Legal Frameworks Governing Free Speech in Uganda

    Article 29(1)(a) of the Ugandan Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but it is not absolute. Various laws impose limitations:

    1. Penal Code Act: Criminalizes obscene publications and speech deemed offensive to public morality.


    2. Computer Misuse Act: Penalizes offensive communication and misuse of electronic systems, often criticized for vague definitions that risk curtailing legitimate dissent.


    3. Defamation Laws: Protect individuals from false and injurious statements, balancing free speech with reputational rights.



    However, Uganda’s judicial precedents, such as Onyango-Obbo & Mwenda v. Attorney General, emphasize that free speech encompasses the right to critique government actions, even in ways that may offend or provoke. Justice Mulenga’s landmark judgment underscored that the limits of free speech must be narrowly construed to allow robust public debate.



    International Legal Perspectives on Profanity and Free Expression

    Globally, courts have grappled with the tension between vulgarity and free speech, offering comparative insights relevant to Uganda:

    1. United States – Cohen v. California (1971): The Supreme Court ruled that offensive language, such as “F*** the Draft,” is protected under the First Amendment unless it incites violence or meets the strict test for obscenity. This case underscores the principle that free expression protects both ideas and the emotive force behind them.


    2. European Court of Human Rights – Handyside v. UK (1976): Freedom of expression includes ideas that offend or shock, but states may impose restrictions to protect public morality.


    3. India – Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Indian Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing “offensive” speech, emphasizing the need for clarity and proportionality in restricting free expression.



    These cases highlight the necessity of carefully balancing societal interests, public morality, and individual rights in regulating speech.



    Gender Sensitivity and Public Discourse

    FIDA-Uganda and similar organizations have framed Semakade’s remarks as emblematic of broader societal disrespect toward women in leadership. Referring to a public official as “another vagina from Karamoja” not only perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes but also trivializes substantive critiques of governance. This resonates with global debates on gender-sensitive communication, where freedom of speech must not justify the marginalization of women.

    Internationally, courts like the ECHR in E.S. v. Austria (2018) have drawn lines between criticism and language that incites discrimination. While Uganda does not have explicit gender-based restrictions on speech, these examples offer a framework for addressing the intersection of free speech and gender equity.


    Ethical Boundaries and Professional Responsibility

    Professional ethics demand that legal leaders uphold decorum, particularly in public discourse. The Uganda Association of Public Prosecutors has argued that Semakade’s language undermines the dignity of the legal profession. Similarly, FIDA-Uganda views his remarks as detracting from the serious issues he sought to address, such as delayed prosecutions and institutional inefficiency.

    Critics of Semakade’s approach point out that effective advocacy does not require vulgarity. Instead, it risks alienating allies and diminishing the credibility of the underlying message. However, proponents argue that provocative language can be a powerful tool to draw attention to systemic injustices, as seen in historical civil rights movements worldwide.


    Structural Challenges in Uganda’s Justice System

    Semakade’s remarks, though controversial, highlight systemic failures that fuel public frustration:

    1. Pretrial Detention: Nearly half of Uganda’s prison population comprises detainees awaiting trial, a clear violation of their right to a speedy trial.


    2. Civilian Trials in Military Courts: Cases like that of Olivia Lutaaya illustrate concerns about due process and the overreach of military jurisdictions.


    3. Delayed Prosecutions: These perpetuate injustices and erode public trust in the judiciary.


    Addressing these structural issues would diminish the need for incendiary rhetoric by fostering accountability through systemic reform.


    Reconciling Free Speech and Professionalism

    The condemnation of Semakade’s remarks reflects a broader societal debate: how should professionals navigate the balance between free speech and ethical obligations? Comparative legal analysis suggests that while free speech must be robustly protected, it is equally essential to ensure that advocacy respects principles of equality, dignity, and professionalism.

    Uganda’s legal community faces an opportunity to lead this conversation by promoting respectful and effective communication while addressing the root causes of public dissatisfaction. Ensuring that justice is both accessible and equitable will go a long way toward creating an environment where free expression thrives without resorting to divisive language.

    About the author.

    Enen Ambrose is an Advocate of the Courts of Judicature in Uganda. He practices with M/S Okurut-Magara Associated Advocates. He is passionate about access to Justice, the Rule of Law, Democracy, Human Rights and Constitutionalism. Drawing inspiration from Gerry Spence’s How to argue and win all the time, he believes that stifling free speech is a barrier to meaningful civic engagement and holding the state accountable for the broader Rule of Law and Constitutional abrogations or contraventions. He is a huge fan of President Isaac Semakade, the current President of the Uganda Law Society who rode on the Back on track theme and the Bang the table slogan. He also strongly believes in the 4Ds, Democratization, Demilitarization, Decolonization and Digitization which were the major deliverables that President Isaac Semakade promised during his campaign to become the head of the Ugandan Bar.

    Contact us:

    Mobile: +256789856905

    Email: ambrosenen@gmail.com

    DISCLAIMER: This blog post is for educational, recreational and informative purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advice. The author shall not be liable for any injuries, legal or otherwise that arises from reliance on the contents of this blog post as legal advice. Viewers are strongly encouraged to contact a qualified attorney in their area of Jurisdiction for situation specific legal advice and possible Legal redress.

  • The Principled Approach to Hearsay Evidence: A Key to Justice in Customary Land Disputes

    The Principled Approach to Hearsay Evidence: A Key to Justice in Customary Land Disputes

    Brief introduction.

    In legal disputes involving customary land, evidence rules can create challenges for communities reliant on oral traditions. While courts traditionally exclude hearsay evidence due to reliability concerns, the principled approach to hearsay evidence accommodates oral histories when they meet specific criteria. This approach is invaluable in ensuring justice, particularly in disputes where written documentation is absent.

    A recent case in Uganda, Osele Yusuf & Others v. Oruni Odwar John & Others, highlights the importance of this approach. The High Court of Uganda at Soroti upheld a trial court decision favoring the respondents, descendants of Oruni Yona, in a land dispute. The case provides an excellent example of how the principled approach can validate oral testimony while balancing the need for credible evidence.

    Brief Facts of the Case

    The dispute centered on 2¼ square miles of land in Ngariam village. The respondents claimed the land as a customary inheritance from their late father, Oruni Yona, who had acquired it during the colonial era. They alleged that Yona was gifted the land by local families and had expanded it through clearing and cultivation.

    The appellants, descendants of a local chief, argued that Yona had only occupied a small plot as a temporary settler. They began asserting ownership in 2014 by inviting the Area Land Committee to demarcate the land, which the respondents opposed. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, citing oral evidence corroborated by physical markers such as graves, homesteads, and cultivated fields.

    The Principled Approach to Hearsay evidence.

    The appellate judge affirmed the trial court’s reliance on oral evidence, applying the principled approach to hearsay. This framework allows hearsay evidence if it satisfies two criteria:

    1. Necessity: The evidence must be essential because the original source is unavailable. In this case, Yona was deceased, and oral testimony was the only way to trace the history of the land.


    2. Reliability: The evidence must be trustworthy, based on consistency with other facts, the reputation of the source, and the absence of bias. The court found Yona’s accounts credible as they predated the dispute and aligned with physical evidence observed during the locus visit.



    Integration of Oral History.

    The court’s acceptance of oral evidence reflects lessons from Canadian jurisprudence, particularly in indigenous land claims. In Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997), the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that oral histories represent vital evidence in communities without written records. Uganda’s adoption of this approach recognizes the cultural realities of customary practices.

    Key Observations

    During a locus visit, the court confirmed:

    Graves of Yona’s family members, dating back decades.

    Remains of homesteads and cultivated fields, demonstrating long-term possession.

    Contradictions in the appellants’ claims, such as inconsistencies about the size and location of the plot allegedly occupied by Yona.


    These findings supported the trial court’s conclusion that the respondents’ oral testimony was credible and reliable. The appellants’ failure to provide consistent evidence weakened their claims.

    A Culturally Sensitive Framework

    The principled approach bridges the gap between strict legal rules and cultural realities. By evaluating oral testimony critically yet fairly, courts can ensure that justice accommodates diverse traditions. In customary land disputes, this approach protects claimants from procedural disadvantages while upholding the integrity of legal proceedings.

    Conclusion

    The Osele Yusuf case underscores the value of the principled approach in addressing customary land disputes. By allowing hearsay evidence when it is necessary and reliable, courts ensure that justice is inclusive and equitable. This approach not only validates oral traditions but also sets a precedent for resolving disputes in culturally informed and historically sensitive ways.

    The Appellants were represented by Counsel Mugoda Denis of Mugoda-Nangulu & Co. Advocates whereas the Respondents were represented by Enen Ambrose of M/S Okurut-Magara Associated Advocates.

    The full Judgment in the case can be accessed from here:

    Osele vs Oruni JudgmentDownload

    DISCLAIMER: This blog post is for educational and awareness purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for professional Legal advice covering specific legal situations. The author accepts absolutely no responsibility for any injuries, legal or otherwise that arises from using the information contained here in. Readers of the blog post are strictly advised to seek professional Legal advice from a qualified Attorney in their areas of Jurisdiction to obtain situation specific advice covering their legal problems.

    About the author.

    Enen Ambrose is an Advocate of the Courts of Judicature and currently practicing with M/S Okurut-Magara Associated Advocates.

    Contact us.

    Email: ambrosenen@gmail.com

    Asiku Road, Adjumani Town Council, Adjumani District

    +256789856805
  • Standing Against Digital Harassment: A Victory for Privacy and Dignity for KS against AM & KSM High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Local Division Case No. 2021/128121

    Standing Against Digital Harassment: A Victory for Privacy and Dignity for KS against AM & KSM High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Local Division Case No. 2021/128121

    In a world where social media and technology are central to our lives, the misuse of these tools can lead to devastating consequences. One recent legal case highlights how the justice system can protect victims of online harassment and uphold their dignity and privacy.

    The case involved a woman whose privacy was severely violated by her former romantic partner and his wife. After their brief relationship ended, the former partner secretly used intimate videos—recorded without her knowledge or consent—to harm her. These videos were posted on a fake social media account created to embarrass and defame her.

    The fake account targeted the woman’s family, friends, and professional colleagues, inviting them to view the harmful content. The abuse went further when the defendants sent messages to the woman’s workplace, spreading false information to tarnish her reputation.

    The impact on the woman’s life was severe. She faced humiliation, emotional trauma, and even suicidal thoughts. She had to leave her job due to the embarrassment caused by the public exposure, and her trust in others was deeply shaken. The stress also led to health issues, including hair loss and complications with pre-existing conditions.

    The victim took legal action, seeking compensation for the damage caused to her personal and professional life. The court found the defendants’ actions to be deliberate and harmful, infringing on her rights to privacy, dignity, and mental well-being.

    This case serves as a powerful reminder that online harassment, including the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, is a serious violation of human rights. Laws now exist to protect individuals from such actions, ensuring that those responsible face legal consequences.

    In an increasingly digital world, it is essential for everyone to understand the importance of respecting others’ privacy. This ruling is not just a victory for the victim but also a message that justice can be achieved in the face of online abuse.

    The full Judgment of the Case can be found here:

    KS v AM and AHM-1Download

    About the author:

    Enen Ambrose, Advocate of the Courts of Judicature in Uganda, practicing with M/S Okurut-Magara Magara Associated Advocates, Adjumani.

    DISCLAIMER: The information provided in this blog is not intended to serve as legal advice and the author accepts no responsibility or liability for any injuries, Legal or otherwise from the use of this information as legal advice. For situation specific advise, the author strongly advises readers to consult a qualified attorney in their area of jurisdiction to advise and assist with the legal problem.

    Contact us:

    ambrosenen@gmail.com
    +256789856805

  • Decolonisation takes yet another toll in East Africa

    Introduction

    Word has gone round that the Government of Tanzania is planning to banish English as a medium of instruction in secondary schools and replace it with Kiswahili. I hope to discuss my views on this subject and explore whether it is possible to do the same in Uganda.

    DECOLONISATION

    Refers to the movement that has arisen in majorly former colonies of Britain and France ( the Anglophone and Francophone) around the world to restore the effects of the colonisation process which had a huge bearing on culture, arts, science, literature and general ways of life of the Peoples in these places. Decolonisation involved more than political independence but post independence review of foreign languages, culture e.t.c and trying to restore an old identity. Kiswahili is a language spoken in East African countries of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Burundi e.t.c. tracing its roots in portugese and Arab occupation of the East African coast.

    Decolonisation has manifested itself in the renaming of Ghana amongst other examples.Until recently it was reported in the media including BBC that the Tanzanian government moved to replace English with Kiswahili as a language of instruction.

    On a BBC interview, the news anchor raised several concerns with a professional teacher in an interview namely

    What were the justifications for the proposed move?, Whether a Tanzanian scientist trained in Kiswahili could compete favourably in the international Market. Of course the teacher supported the move reasoning that students were instructed in Kiswahili in Primary schools and learning English in secondary schools was making the learning process hard but was left in an awkward dilemma in the second question.The following are my views on second concern.

    It is actually possible to compete in the international market in Kiswahili.

    The reasons are not far to get.

    1. Kiswahili has  fast gained  the status of an international language and is being taught in institutions of learning including international universities like Yale in the USA

    2.One of the world’s largest emerging economies, china have managed to preserve their language and culture vis-a-vis English with manuals for their products published in Chinese, With the East African Political Federation being fast tracked, it is only logical that there should be a unifying language that cuts across the spectrum bearing in mind that this part of the world is blessed with a diversity of ethnicities and races ( I have carefully excluded the term “tribes” due to its distaste in the decolonisation and post colonial movements for the obvious reason that it connotes inferiority and primitivism)

    3. It is better to stay who you are than pretend to be a person you are not. The English, Russians, Koreans, Japanese e.t.c have preserved their civilisations and are by large succesful, this side of earth suffers from a dual identity and remains poorest and unprivileged by large.

    CONCLUSION

    It is possible to compete internationally with a well-groomed Kiswahili training on account of the above reasons other than pretending to speak the “queen’s language”