Serikali Inawafahamu Wafuasi wa Mungiki.

Kuna wasiwasi unaoonekana kutanda katika mji wa Thika nchini Kenya, kuhusu kuendelea kwa shughuli za genge la wahuni la Mungiki katika maeneo ya Githunguri, Kiambu, na hata Muranga. Jambo ambalo linaoonekana kutokana na kukosekana kwa usimamizi wa sheria katika biashara ya Matatu.  Kikundi hicho kinasadikika kueneza kurejewa kwa imani za jadi za kabila la kikuyu; lakini hata hivyo kimetuhumiwa kwa mauaji, unyang’anyaji na ulaghai.   Wafuasi wa kikundi hicho wanafanya shughuli zao mbele ya macho ya Serikali ya Kenya. Kila Matatu  inalipa kiwango fulani cha pesa ili kuweza kuwasafirisha wateja toka sehemu moja hadi nyingine. Mbali na hayo, wanaitisha kiwango kikubwa cha pesa kila mwezi kwa ajili ya usalama. Genge hilo linafanya kazi ya kusafisha magari, na kudai kila mtu alipe ada ya matumizi ya barabara. Kiwango cha pesa wanachoitisha ni kikubwa sana na wengi hawawezi kulipa kutokana na umasikini walio nao. Hali hii imesababisha msuguano kati ya magenge na wafanyikazi wa Matatu. Serikali yetu inalifamu genge hili na ingekuwa vyema kama wangewasaidia wenye matatu kukomesha genge hilo mara moja. Mwaka jana, genge hilo lilianza kudhibiti biashara yenye faida ya “chang’aa” (pombe) kwa madai kwamba watengenezaji walitakiwa kulipa ada ya shillingi 2000. Watengenezaji walipinga madai hayo na hapo genge hilo liliharibu biashara hiyo. Katika jitihada ya kutuliza hali, ufumbuzi wa matatizo ulitokea. Wengi waliohusishwa kwa matatizo hayo walidai kwamba kama serikali ingetimiza wajibu wake kwa kujenga makazi na huduma zingine za msingi kama maji na umeme, basi hawangetaabishwa na genge hilo. Umasikini umewalazimisha wakaaji wa vitongoji hivyo kufanya biashara ambazo serikali inadai siyo halali. Mwaka 2003, serikali ilitangaza kwamba ingejenga nyumba zaidi ya 150,000 kwa watu wa makazi duni. Miaka mitano baadaye, ahadi hii bado haijatekelezwa. Wakenya wenzangu, inapaswa kubadili mfumo mzima wa utawala, na jambo muhimu zaidi ni kuwa na sera ya kutoa mwongozo wa makazi na kutoa huduma katika maeneo ya makaazi duni. Serikali ya Kibaki imeshindwa kuwasaidia wakaaji hawa katika kipindi hiki. Wakazi hawa wamechanganyikiwa akili na kushindwa kwa nini serikali haiwezi kuwapatia makazi au huduma. Wakaaji wa Kibera, Mathare na wenye matatu  yafaa wajitoe na uzoefu wao, hofu zao na matarajio na kuonyesha dunia vile wanavyokabiliana na hali kama hii isiokuwa ya kibinadamu. Mara nyingi watu ambao hawaishi katika makazi duni ndio ambao wanazungumzia masuala kuhusu makazi duni. Wakati huu, serikali ya Kibaki imewaangusha tena. Asilimia 60 ya wakaaji wote wa mji mkuu wa Kenya wanaishi katika makazi duni na hawawezi kuishi maisha ya heshima. Serikali imeshindwa! Kibaki asipewe kipindi kingine mbali Wakenya wamchague rais tofauti kuona kama watapata mabadiliko, kwani masilahi na usalama ya binadamu ni ya maana kuliko vitu vingine. Hivi leo, genge hilo limevuruga wananchi na kuharibu biashara ya Wakenya. Ningeomba serikali irefushe mkono wake na kulichomoa genge hilo mara moja. Kila Mkenya anaelewa wanachama wa Mungiki wanakaa Mathare na vitongoji vidogo-vodogo hasa Nairobi. Serikali pia inafahamu vyema kabisa hili genge linausumbuvu sana kwa uchumi wa Kenya kwa jumla. Munala Wa Munala

Bashing Lives of Kenyan Politicians.

It is a shame that our leaders are preaching about drinking water while they take wine. Majority of our politicians cannot be trusted at any point. The people they represent their interests, take the back burner as personal ambitions are put on overdrive. Allow me to give my views on the new road-master in Kenya that has hit the media house for the last few days. Will the opposition have an intact to govern if their preoccupation is to buy expensive machines in the midst of the poor citizens of Kenya? Their behaviours overshadow the genuine desires of many Kenyans. I recognize the level of disillusionment that the Kenyans have with the current political dispensation. I don’t blame Kenyans for being skeptical about the sincerity of our politicians. With the former reformists radically turning out to be pathetic sycophants and worshippers of luxury machines and life, our politicians enjoys a lot of privileges and sometimes they behave like they have both the country and everybody in it. The leaders that we elected with a lot of passion and pervading sense of national heritage have transformed themselves into a class that the people who elected them are afraid of them rather than respecting them. Surely, we struggle for a Kenya that has honey and milk for everyone. If history has something to teach us, then none of the current politicians can deliver their promises. You will agree with me that the basic fundamental requirement for human interaction is trust. It would be impossible for any positive human interaction if people had no trust on each other. Currently, Kenyans have lost trust with their leaders. Kenyans are not sure of the sincerity of the politicians they engage in an agreement with. Our leaders are supposed to be our eminent role models. How can you trust leaders who preach about how to improve the lives of poor people yet themselves they live bashing lives? Kenyans did not elect leaders or politicians to lecture us on what the Kibaki regime has done or hasn’t done, we know it and that is why we are going Orange. Our support for Orange Democratic Movement is genuine and it’s obvious that ODM-Kenya is going to take power. But for what reasons are we supporting ODM-K? We are not going to accept hypocritical leaders pretending to be with the common Mwananchi while they are building the wall of Jericho that divides the poor and the rich. Kenyan people are one and the only two tribes that we have is between the rich and the poor. Kenyans have been used in many ways by the rich elites. How can a rich man represent the views of a poor person? We hope that the future is bright with ODM-Kenya because it’s the only surest vehicle for change but we still believe that the real change can only come by trying another set of leaders in the management of the affairs of the country. We are not angels to know who is speaking the truth and who is not. We can only make judgments of track record, the past and the present of which will dictate the future of our prominent leaders. The ODM-K set of leaders have promised determination and commitment to correct things and to manifest materially the kind of fundamental changes that we need for Kenya. Our remaining task is to choose the most suitable alternative to Kibaki. Do we have an alternative to Kibaki right now? Majority of the poor people elect these politicians so that they can represent them. If they wanted to help Kenyans they could have done it even without being politicians. For instance, Raila, Kalonzo, Mudavadi and the rest they are filthy rich. Why can’t they share what they have first before they can start promising honey and milk when they take power? Honey and milk they have, the missing element is how to share it. Charity starts from home. With Kshs 43 million, you can make more than 400 000 toilets in Kibera thus avoiding the flying toilets. With the same amount, you can dig 86 water boreholes in Kibera thus saving Kibera residents who struggle to get clean water. You can open a micro-finance for more than 4000 people with a capital of more than Kshs10 000 thus improving their lives. The people who elected the above politicians are languishing in poverty. You don’t need to be a politician to change the circumstances that surrounds the poor people of Kenya. Leadership is a factor of various elements for example, personality values, charisma, experience, past, present or immediate social environment or other context of leadership infrastructure. Collectivism is a belief that human endeavour is of greater practical and moral value than individual self striving. Collective interests should prevail over individual ones. After giving our votes to these people, they normally build a fence that a common Mwananchi cannot jump over just to say “Habari Mheshimiwa”. Some of them write on their gates “Mbwa Kali” and also have guards who will never let you near the house. The moral vision that underlies our leaders is in big questions. Are our leaders moral? If they are, how can they be riding horses as the people they represent languish? If they are representing the poor people, why can’t they live like them? It is upon us Kenyans to cross examine our politicians before we elect them. Otherwise the best way forward is to try a new group of politicians that have a vision with less lies to our people. Elect someone who understands what it means to walk every morning to industrial area to look for (Kibarua) work, who understands what it means to eat ugali and sukumawiki throughout the year without a balanced diet. For how long are we going to be fooled around? Kenyans let us wake up and demand our rights. They have the money, you have the vote. Munala wa Munala.

Hypocrisy of the Rich Countries.

Recently, 22 developed countries pledged to work towards each giving 0.7% (a little less than 1%) of their national income in international aid, which would raise the $195 billion. Some countries are slow to meet their pledge. Poverty keeps sick people from receiving basic medical treatment or taking simple preventative measures. The vast majority of these preventable deaths occur among the poorest people in the poorest countries. In September 2000, the 189 countries of the United Nations unanimously agreed to “spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty,” specifically hunger and the “major diseases that afflict humanity.” To accomplish this great objective would be expensive, and the price was later estimated at about $195 billion a year. This amount of money could not be raised by private charities or individuals. It would require the combined efforts of governments throughout the world to do it. Countries Agree to 0.7% in International Aid: In the March 2002 Monterrey Conference, 22 of the world’s wealthiest countries  agreed to make “concrete efforts” towards the goal of each giving 0.7 per cent of their national income as aid to the poorest countries. This conference was attended by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, U.S. President George Bush, French President Jacques Chirac, and many other world leaders. In the September 2002 Johannesburg Summit, these same 22 counties re-affirmed their commitment to reach the 0.7% goal. This would provide enough money to raise the $195 billion per year. This would allow the problems of extreme poverty to be “substantially eliminated,” in the words of the United Nations. Why the 0.7% Agreement? The countries made this agreement because they realized that it was hard for each country on its own to give a consistent, minimum level of aid each year. Despite good intentions, a country would find that the aid it wanted to give was eaten away by competing political interests, concern about budget deficits, “problems at home,” “problems abroad,” and so on. So they agreed to a minimal, flat rate that each country could afford each year regardless of its current political or economic state. The 0.7% figure may sound complicated, but it is actually quite simple. You take the total income earned by all the people in the country and give 0.7% (seven tenths of one percent) of that as aid. Or to look at it another way: for every $100 earned in the country, the country gives 70 cents in aid. For every $10, the country gives 7 cents. How are the countries doing? Five countries have already met the goal to give 0.7% of their income in international aid: Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. In 2002 and 2003, five other countries set up a schedule to give 0.7%: Belgium, Ireland, Finland, France, and Spain.  In July 2004, the United Kingdom set up a schedule to give 0.7%. In April 2005, Germany set up a schedule to give 0.7%. In May 2005, Austria, Greece, Italy, and Portugal set up a schedule to give 0.7%. It was not easy for many of the countries to set up a schedule to reach the 0.7% goal. In some cases, such as Britain and Germany, it took the combined effort of many thousands of citizens writing and petitioning their government to get it done. The remaining six countries: Only six countries have not yet set up a schedule to give 0.7%. These are Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States. To raise the necessary $195 billion a year, it will be necessary for these six to reach the goal. These six countries are all democracies. All that is necessary for them to reach the 0.7% goal is for enough of their citizens to show their support. Sources: UN Millennium Project and (UNDP). Munala Wa Munala.

Hon. Purity Muhindi Speaks to Wakenya Via A Letter.

My long awaited letter from the Embassy of Kenya in Scandinavia came today at 10.a.m local time. For the first time in my many years in Sweden I received a letter from the people that represents me in Scandinavia. The ambassador, who has never met Kenyans in Scandinavia, now wants Kenyans to give their sensitive information to Kenya Embassy in Scandinavia without Meeting the people she represents. 

Last year at Jamhuri day celebration (I was not invited) that I attended, i met a lady who works at the embassy. I tried to introduce myself but she completely refused to respond back. I insisted and i wanted to know her name but she refused even to look at me. A few minutes later, i saw her speaking to my friend and i asked him who she was, he told me her names were Josphine Awour and she works at the Kenyan Embassy. I was surprised to see her signature in the letter i got today on behalf of the ambassador. I don’t understand how a public figure like J.V.Awour can avoid saying hallo to the people she represents?

 

The embassy should try to establish contact with us through various local community based organizations like; ODM-KS, NARC-KS and KESOFO so that they can clearly get to know our problems as Kenyans in Scandinavia. I don’t believe even a second they care for us, if they did, they would be in a better position to know us personally since we are very few in number. I don’t know what role the embassy plays with Kenyans who are here for political reasons. It should be informing the Kenyan community about the political situation in Kenya and even in Sweden.

 

Charges to renew a passport are exorbitant, lots of paperwork and the process is very slow.  Many people are not treated with dignity when they want to talk to some officials at the Embassy. The Embassy officials have chosen a ring of preferred individuals who are above common Mwananchi to associate with. I am very interested to be invited by the embassy for social contact but this has never happened. Since arriving here back in 2000, they have never invited me though they have my personal information. I have been discriminated by the Swedes in different ways and still i feel the embassy representatives have discriminated me even more.

 

I don’t think the embassy is representing us. For many years, i have seen our Kenyan people perish in this cold country without the embassy raising a voice, said Mzee Gerry Midenyo. Mzee Gerry continues to wonder how they got the address they used to sent the personal information letter and a form to fill his sensitive personal information. “They know us and we don’t need to give them our information in the name of updating our record”. They don’t come to Wakenya parties and if they appear, they sit in one corner enjoying beer and not talking to common Kenyans.

 

I feel completely alone in this country, few days ago i called the embassy and i asked if i can talk to Hon. Purity Muhindi, i was told to book time of which i did. The ambassador’s Secretary told me everything was okay as long as i can wait for two weeks. On the 14-03-07 at 10.a.m, i was supposed to meet Hon. Purity Muhindi to interview her on general issues concerning Wakenya in Scandinavia. A day before the material date, ambassador’s Secretary called me and cancelled the appointment. I was not surprised because am used to this kind of manual office management and their acts of not respecting appointments and time.

 

I would like to remind Hon. Purity Muhindi that we as Kenyans in Scandinavia, we are waiting for her to come out and say “habari Wakenya, mimi naitwa Mheshimiwa Purity Muhindi”. The don’t care attitude that they are trying to show Wakenya is a show of lack of respect to Wakenya in general. Many Kenyans in Scandinavia are law abiding people who respect one another. We help one another and we have to remember we are far from home. Our brothers, parents and sisters are back in Kenya and that’s why we are so much concerned about Kenyan affairs. We have many forums in Sweden and she can choose one which fits best her to bring Salamu from Mzee President Kibaki. We are still waiting for that day!

Munala Wa Munala.

Asylum Crisis In Rich Countries, But Why?

With all the frenetic and unsubstantiated claims of African immigrants swamping rich countries, this contention should best be judged by the real figures on the ground. The figures published here come from the Washington based US Committee for Refugees which kindly gave us permission to quote some of their well researched data published in their 2003 World Refugee Survey. Compare how many Africans actually “flee” abroad to those who stay on African soil.  People at one time or another have fled to other countries for various reasons. Hunger, wars, climate and so forth. The law of nature teaches us that you don’t have to stay in one place and die of hunger, poverty and harsh conditions that man can change. You move to find food and good economy. It is based on the above principles that in 19th centaury, the Europeans moved all over the world to find food and to a void poverty. In today’s parlance, they would be called economic immigrants deserving arrest at the airport and deported. They arrived in Africa without passports and visas but they were made welcomed. Many have ignored the fundamental part played by Africa “host” in slavery and colonialism. Let African in Europe just like they did 100 years ago. I think Africa was first to understand the term universal democracy whereby people can live and work where they want without restrictions.    Angola: Millions of Angolans remained uprooted at the end of 2002, including 2 million to 3.5 million people displaced within the country itself and nearly 410,000 others seeking asylum outside the country. Approximately 190.000 Angola refugees lived in Zambia in 2002, 150,000 Congo-Kinshasa, 30,000 in Congo-Brazzaville, 25,000 in Namibia, 5,000 in South Africa and 2,000 in Botswana. This compares with 7,000 Angolan asylum applicants in industrialised countries. About 12,000 refugees from DRCongo continued to live in Angola in 2002.  Burundi: More than 400,000 Burundians were refugees at the end of 2002, including at least 370,000 in Tanzania; an estimated 20,000 in DR.Congo; nearly 3,000 in Malawi; more than 2,000 in Rwanda; some 2,000 in South Africa; approximately 1,000 each in Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe; and more than 2,000 in a half-dozen other countries. In addition, an estimated 470,000 Burundians lived without official refugee status in western Tanzania villages and settlements. Approximately 400,000 or more Burundians were internally displaced at the end of 2002, including some 300,000 living in camps. Burundi, on the other hand, hosted more than 40,000 refugees at the end of 2002, mostly from DRCongo.  CAR: Some 50,000 refugees from other countries lived in Central African Republic in 2002, including 35,000 or more from Sudan, about 11,000 from DRCongo, nearly 2,000 Republic from various other countries.  Cóte d’Ivoire: An estimated half a million or more Ivorians were newly uprooted at the end of 2002, including at least 500,000 internally displaced persons and about 25,000 refugees and asylum seekers. Some 20,000 Ivorian refugees lived in Liberia, 2,000 in Guinea, and 1,000 in Mali. This compares with nearly 2,000 Ivorian asylum seekers in industrialised countries. On the other hand, about 50,000 refugees from other countries remained in Cóte d’Ivoire in 2002, the vast majority from Liberia.  DRCongo: DRCongo was the source of more than 2.4 million uprooted people at the end of 2002, including 2 million or more internally displaced persons and nearly 410,000 refugees and asylum seekers. Significant numbers of Congolese refugees lived in 13 African countries, including 140,000in Tanzania, 80,000 in Congo-Brazzaville, 50,000 in Zambia, 40,000 in Burundi, 30,000in Rwanda, 12,000 in Angola, 11,000 in Central African Republic, 10,000 in Uganda, 8,000 in South Africa, 5,000 in Zimbabwe, 4,000 in Mozambique, 3,000 in Malawi, and I,000 in Benin. This compares with 15,000 Congolese asylum seekers in western countries in 2002. On the other hand, in 2002 DRCongo hosted more than 270,000 refugees from neighbouring countries, including 150,000 from Angola, 70,000 from Sudan, 20,000 from Uganda, 20,000 from Burundi, 10,000 from Central African Republic, 3,000 from Congo-Brazzaville, and 1,000 from Rwanda. An additional 25,000 Rwandans lived in DRCongo in refugee-like circumstances, their status undetermined because their individual asylum claims could not be assessed amid the war in Congo.  Eritrea: Nearly 290,000 Eritreans were refugees at the end of 2002, including some 280,000 in Sudan, nearly 5,000 in Ethiopia and about 1,000 in Yemen. This compares with about 3,000 Eritrean asylum seekers in various western countries. Ethiopia: Ethiopia hosted nearly 115,000 refugees at the end of 2002, including more than 90,000 from Sudan, 20,000 from Somalia, and nearly 5,000 from Eritrea. Yet more than 20,000 Ethiopians were refugees or asylum seekers at the end of 2002, including more than 10,000 in Kenya, 2,000 in Sudan, nearly 2,000 in Djibouti, and more than 1,000 in Yemen. This compares with an estimated 6,000 Ethiopian asylum applicants in Europe and the United States.  Ghana: Ghana hosted more than 40,000 refugees at the end of 2002, including an estimated 110,000 from Liberia, 70,000 from Sierra Leone, and nearly 1,000 from Togo. About 3,000 new asylum seekers entered the country during the year. This compares with nearly 2,000 Ghanaians asylum seekers in western countries.  Guinea: Guinea hosted more than 180,000 refugees at the end of 2002, including an estimated 110,000 from Liberia, 70,000 from Sierra Leone, and 2,000 from Cóte d’Ivoire. About 5,000 Guineans were asylum seekers in industrialised countries during the same period.   Kenya: Kenya hosted approximately 220,000 refugees and asylum seekers at the end of 2002, including more than 140,000 from Somalia, nearly 70,000 from Sudan, some 10,000 from Ethiopia, and more than 1,000 from other countries. An estimated 230,000 Kenyans were internally displaced at the end of 2002. This compares with about 2,000 Kenyans who sought asylum in various western countries.  Nigeria: Nearly 30,000 Nigerians were refugees and asylum seekers at the end of 2002, including an estimated 15,000 in Cameroon, several hundred in various African nations, and about 14,000 in western countries. On the other hand, Nigeria hosted more than 7,000 refugees at the end of 2002, including more than 3,000 from Chad, about 2,000 from Sierra Leone, and nearly 2,000 from Liberia.  Liberia: Approximately 380,000 or more Liberians were uprooted at the end of 2002; nearly 280,000 of them became refugees and asylum seekers in neighbouring countries, including some 110,000 in Guinea, 60,000 in Sierra Leone, 50,000 in Cóte d’Ivoire, 35,000 in Ghana, and about 2,000 in West African countries. Some 20,000 Liberians left for the US and other industrialised countries during the same year.  Rwanda: Nearly 50,000 Rwandans were refugees or asylum seekers at the end of 2002, including nearly 20,000 in Uganda, 7,000 in Malawi, 5,000 each in Congo-Brazzaville and in Zambia,3,000 in Zimbabwe, 3,000 in Tanzania, 2,000 in Mozambique, nearly 1,000 in DRCongo, 1,000 in Burundi, and about 1,000 in South Africa. This compares with 2,000 Rwandans who sought asylum in Europe. Meanwhile Rwanda hosted nearly 35,000 refugees at the end of 2002, including more than 30,000 from DRCongo-Kinshasa and at least 2,000 from Burundi.  Senegal: Approximately 10,000 Senegalese were refugees at the end of 2002, including some 6,000 in Guinea-Bissau, and about 5,000 in the Gambia. In contrast, Senegal hosted nearly 45,000 refugees and asylum seekers at the end of 2002, including an estimated 40,000 from Mauritania and about 5,000 from various African countries. Sierra-Leone: More than 130,000 Sierra Leoneans remained refugees or asylum seekers at the end of 2002, including some 70,000 in Guinea, an estimated 40,000 in Liberia, 5,000 in Ghana, 5,000 in Gambia and 2,000 in Nigeria. This compares with 10,000 Sierra Leonean asylum seekers in the US and other industrialised countries. During the same period, more than 200,000 Sierra Leoneans uprooted by war returned to their home areas. Meanwhile, Sierra Leone hosted about 60,000 refugees from Liberia, including some 40,000 who arrived during 2002.  Somalia: Nearly 300,000 refugees and asylum seekers from Somalia lived in about two dozen countries at the end of 2002, including more than 140,000 in Kenya, nearly 80,000 in Yemen, 21,000 in Djibouti, about 20,000 in Ethiopia, 7,000 in South Africa, 7,000 in Egypt, 3,000 in Tanzania, 3,000 in Libya, 2,000 in Eritrea, and about 1,000 in Uganda. In contrast, there were more than 15,000 asylum seekers in the US and Europe. But approximately 350,000 Somalis were internally displaced at the end of 2002.  South Africa: South Africa hosted some 65,000 refugees and asylum seekers at the end of 2002, including about 25,000 recognised refugees and 40,000 asylum seekers whose asylum applications were still under review at the end of the year. The 25,000 recognised refugees included nearly 8,000 from DRCongo, nearly 7,000 from Somalia, 5,000 from Angola, 2,000 from Burundi, 1,000 from Rwanda and 2,000 from other countries. Government records did not indicate the nationalities of nearly 40,000 asylum seekers whose applications for refugee status were pending.  Sudan: Nearly 4.5 million Sudanese were uprooted at the end of 2002, including an estimated 4 million internally displaced persons and some 475,000 who lived as refugees and asylum seekers in other countries, including about 170,000in Uganda, 90,000 in Ethiopia, 70,000 in DRCongo, 70,000 in Kenya, 35,000 in Central African Republic, 20,000 in Egypt, 15,000 in Chad, and 1,000 in Eritrea. In contrast, 5,000 Sudanese sought asylum in western countries.  Tanzania: Tanzania hosted approximately 520,000 refugees at the end of 2002, including more than 370,000 from Burundi, 140,000 from DRCongo, 3,000 from Somalia, and about 3,000 from Rwanda. Tanzania hosted an additional 300,000 to 470,000 Burundians who resided in western Tanzania in refugee-like circumstances without official refugee status.    Uganda: Some 600,000 to 700,000 Ugandans remained initially displaced at the end of 2002. More than 25,000 Ugandans were refugees or asylum seekers, including 20,000 in Congo-Kinshasa, about 5,000 in Sudan, and nearly 2,000 in western countries. On the other hand, Uganda hosted more than 220,000 refugees and asylum seekers at the end of 2002, including about 170,000 from Sudan, 20,000 from Rwanda, nearly 10,000 from DRCongo, 1,000 from Somalia, and 20,000 or more of various nationalities who resided in Kampala, the capital city.  Zambia: Zambia hosted nearly 250,000 refugees and asylum seekers at the end of 2002, including some 190,000 from Angola, 50,000 from DRCongo, 5,000 from Rwanda, 1,000 from Burundi and 1,000 from other countries. More than 25 years of civil war in Angola pushed approximately 200,000 refugees into Zambia where some Angolan refugees have lived since the 1970s, while others arrived as recently as 2002.  Zimbabwe: An estimated 100,000 to 200,000 people were internally displaced in Zimbabwe at the end of 2002, while about 8,000 Zimbabweans were asylum applicants in industrialised countries during the year. In contrast, Zimbabwe hosted 10, refugees in 2002, including nearly 5,000 from DRCongo, 3,000 from Rwanda, 1,000 from Burundi and about 1,000 from other African countries.  Source: NewAfrican.  Edited by:Munala Wa Munala.