logo
Uganda's 80-year-old president in bid to extend 40-year rule

Uganda's 80-year-old president in bid to extend 40-year rule

Yahoo2 days ago
Uganda's long-serving president, Yoweri Museveni, 80, has been declared the governing party's candidate in next year's presidential election, opening the way for him to seek to extend his nearly 40 years in power.
In his acceptance speech, Museveni said that he had responded to the call and, if elected, would press ahead with his mission to turn Uganda into a "high middle income country".
Museveni's critics say he has ruled with an iron hand since he seized power as a rebel leader in 1986.
He has won every election held since then, and the constitution has been amended twice to remove age and term limits to allow him remain in office.
Pop star-turned-politician Bobi Wine is expected to be Museveni's main challenger in the election scheduled for next January.
Wine told the BBC in April that he would run against Museveni if he was nominated by his party, the National Unity Platform, but it was getting "tougher" to be in opposition because of growing state repression.
"Being in the opposition in Uganda means being labelled a terrorist," he said.
Wine, whose real name is Robert Kyagulanyi, lost the last election in 2021 to Museveni by 35% to 59% in a poll marred by allegations of rigging and a crackdown on the opposition.
Another prominent opposition politician, Kizza Besigye, has been in detention since November after being accused of treason. He denies the allegation, saying his arrest is political.
In his acceptance speech at the National Resistance Movement (NRM) conference on Saturday, Museveni said that he had brought about stability and progress in Uganda.
He said it was crucial that Uganda did not "miss the bus of history as happened in the past when Europe transformed and Africa stagnated and was enslaved".
Museveni added that he wanted Uganda to take a "qualitative leap", and become a "high upper middle income country".
"Other countries in Asia with less natural resources, did it. We can do it," he added.
Are East African governments uniting to silence dissent?
How Besigye disappeared in Kenya and ended up in military court
How an ex-rebel has stayed in power
Go to BBCAfrica.com for more news from the African continent.
Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
Focus on Africa
This Is Africa
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

NY Times rushed out story on Mamdani claiming to be black on Columbia application over fears it would be scooped by Christopher Rufo: report
NY Times rushed out story on Mamdani claiming to be black on Columbia application over fears it would be scooped by Christopher Rufo: report

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

NY Times rushed out story on Mamdani claiming to be black on Columbia application over fears it would be scooped by Christopher Rufo: report

The New York Times rushed to put out its story on Zohran Mamdani claiming to be 'African American' when he applied to Columbia University because the newspaper feared it would be scooped by right-leaning journalist Christopher Rufo, according to a report. The Gray Lady is facing a storm of criticism following its decision to publish the story based on hacked Columbia documents that revealed Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, identified as both 'Asian' and 'Black or African American' on his 2009 college application. Mamdani, who is of Indian descent and was born in Uganda, confirmed the details to the Times and said he checked those boxes because the application did not reflect the complexity of his background. Two people familiar with the reporting process told Semafor that the Times knew Rufo and other reporters were working on the same lead. Rufo confirmed to Semafor that he had been pursuing the story and planned to release more details on his Substack. A Times spokesperson denied that Rufo's reporting prompted the timing of the publication. 'We publish stories once newsworthy information is confirmed and our reporters and editors have completed their work,' a Times spokesperson told The Post. 'That was the case with this story; we went to Mr. Mamdani, he confirmed our information as true, and our colleagues had done thorough reporting. We don't hit publish because others may be working on a story.' Times editors also sought to push back on the public criticism. 'What matters most here is whether the information was true and factual — it was, confirmed by Mr. Mamdani; that it was independently confirmed; and that it is relevant to the public,' Patrick Healy, assistant managing editor for standards and trust at the Times, told CJR. Mayor Eric Adams, who is running against Mamdani as an independent, publicly called on Columbia to release Mamdani's admission records, calling his racial identification 'deeply offensive.' Aides to former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who lost to Mamdani in the Democratic primary, said Mamdani's claims on the form could be 'the tip of the iceberg' and that the state assemblyman could be hiding even more 'fraud.' The Times piece drew criticism over the weekend, sparking heated debate among Mamdani's supporters, media observers and even Gray Lady journalists. Some critics defended Mamdani's racial identification, pointing out that he was born in Africa. Others questioned the ethics of reporting on a college application that was ultimately rejected, and whether hacked materials from a teenager's personal file merited a full news article. A large share of the criticism focused on the source of the documents — an online figure known for using the pseudonym Crémieux. Initially described by the Times as 'an academic and an opponent of affirmative action,' Crémieux has previously promoted controversial views on the link between race and IQ. According to the Guardian, Crémieux is the alias of Jordan Lasker. The Times later updated the article to note that Crémieux 'writes often about IQ and race.' The Post has sought comment from Rufo and Mamdani. Lasker was not immediately available for comment. Jane Kirtley, a media ethics professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, questioned the decision to grant the source anonymity. 'It seems a little disingenuous to play this game of 'We know something you don't know,'' she said. 'Why would you promise him anonymity and then play hide-the-ball with the readers?' She added: 'My question is: Why would you have even made that promise to this individual in the first instance? I don't see the need.' The story also caused friction within the Times newsroom. 'People are really upset,' one Times journalist told Semafor. Times columnist Jamelle Bouie was particularly vocal, posting on Bluesky: 'i think you should tell readers if your source is a nazi.' He deleted that post — and others expressing frustration with the article — citing a violation of Times social media guidelines. Bouie did not respond to a request for comment. Lydia Polgreen, another Times columnist, shared her perspective without directly commenting on the story's newsworthiness. 'I can see why a political young man like Zohran might fill out his college application the way he did,' she wrote on Twitter. 'Because if you are like me, you struggle to be known in this country. Our visual sorting is so simplistic and quite brutal.' Polgreen, who is biracial with African parents, said she understood Mamdani's identification choices. The Times leadership stood by the reporting. According to Semafor, senior editors were aligned in their decision to publish and approved the story after a standard editorial review. A senior Times reporter defended the story by pointing to the public conversation it had sparked. 'The fact that this story engendered all the conversation and debate that it has feels like all the evidence you need that this was a legit line of reporting,' the reporter said. Still, critics questioned the newsworthiness of the article and the Times' choice to base it on stolen records.

Social Security sends incorrect email saying ‘Big Beautiful Bill' ends taxes on benefits—here's what is actually changing
Social Security sends incorrect email saying ‘Big Beautiful Bill' ends taxes on benefits—here's what is actually changing

Yahoo

time39 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Social Security sends incorrect email saying ‘Big Beautiful Bill' ends taxes on benefits—here's what is actually changing

The Social Security Administration sent a misleading email to benefit recipients and other Americans last week about the Republican budget bill that was recently signed into law by President Donald Trump. Advocates are now trying to correct the record to ensure beneficiaries know how the legislation could affect their tax bill. On July 3, Social Security sent an email and posted a press release saying that 'the new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries.' It also says 'nearly 90%' of beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on the benefit. While eliminating taxes on Social Security had been proposed by Republican politicians, that provision was ultimately taken out of the version of the so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill' that became law because it violated Senate rules. Instead, the law allows Americans aged 65 or older to take an additional $6,000 income tax deduction. Notably, this does not include beneficiaries who are aged 62 to 64. The agency updated the press release Monday to note the deduction after outcry and media coverage. The difference could confuse beneficiaries, according to National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, a non-profit advocating to preserve and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. The group also notes that the political messaging behind the email—it heralds the 'landmark' legislation—is 'unprecedented' for the SSA, which is supposed to be a neutral agency managing the benefits of some 73 million Americans. SSA did not immediately respond to Fortune's request for comment. Trump made a point of promising to end taxation on Social Security benefits on the campaign trail. As Republican politicians worked to put their budget bill together, many promised to include the provision. But in order to pass the legislation using a process called reconciliation, it was determined that the GOP could not include a provision on Social Security taxes. Instead, they substituted in the higher deduction for older Americans. The legislation signed into law last week does, however, include a provision that allows Americans aged 65 and older to deduct an additional $6,000 on their federal income taxes, in addition to the standard deduction, which is already bigger for seniors than it is for younger Americans. Those who itemize also qualify for it. For married couples, both spouses can take the deduction if they are both over 65, for a total of $12,000 extra. Like other provisions in the bill, it is time limited: It is in effect only for the 2025 to 2028 tax seasons. It also applies to those earning a modified adjusted gross income up to $75,000, or double that for married couples. It then begins to phase out for incomes above that threshold, and is not available to individuals earning $175,000, or couples earning $250,000. According to the White House, this provision will increase the share of seniors receiving Social Security who will not pay income tax on their benefits from 64% to 88%. The poorest seniors won't benefit from the break, because they already do not pay Social Security taxes (the White House's own analysis notes 64% already do not)—nor the richest, given the income phaseout. Instead, it is upper-middle class seniors who stand to benefit for the next few years. Those with incomes below $63,300 pay about 1% or less of their benefits, on average, in taxes, according to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Additionally, this portion of the bill actually hastens the program's insolvency, a concern for many Americans, because the taxes seniors pay on the benefits go back into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds for future generations. In fact, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimates the provision would bring the trust fund to insolvency one year sooner than current calculations. Once that happens, Social Security beneficiaries would face an across-the-board benefit cut of around 24%, CRFB says. Other provisions in the bill are also expected to disproportionately affect older Americans. For example, it changes eligibility for and cuts federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) starting in 2027, which 11 million adults aged 50 and older rely on, according to AARP. New work requirements on Medicaid could also prevent some older Americans from receiving benefits. Social Security has become a lightening rod for controversy since Trump's inauguration in January. The agency was an early target of the administration's so-called Department of Government Efficiency under Elon Musk, which has worried advocates who say it is becoming overly-politicized. This story was originally featured on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store