@umahhasna: ✨ Tulis nama sesuka hati di pulpen favoritmu! Pulpen custom cocok untuk hadiah, souvenir, kado wisuda, ulang tahun, sampai kebutuhan kantor 🖊️💖 Bisa custom nama, logo, dan desain sesuai keinginan✨ Simple • Elegan • Bermanfaat 📌 Cocok buat: ✔ Souvenir acara ✔ Kado spesial ✔ Merchandise kantor/sekolah ✔ Daily use biar makin estetik Yuk custom sekarang sebelum kehabisan ✨ #PulpenCustom #PulpenNama #SouvenirCustom #GiftCustom #pulpenaesthetic

dhe🌸🩷
dhe🌸🩷
Open In TikTok:
Region: ID
Sunday 31 May 2026 12:00:31 GMT
2180
86
3
4

Music

Download

Comments

bucix567
Oetami Tami :
itu nm y stiker or d tulis pd pulpennya?
2026-06-05 10:56:26
0
hanum.khy
HanumKhy21 :
🥰🥰🥰
2026-05-31 14:30:03
0
To see more videos from user @umahhasna, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

In yet another dramatic twist in the Lawrence Muganga controversy, the man at the center of Uganda's most talked-about citizenship debate has now taken journalists to the graves of his deceased parents in Mukono in an apparent attempt to prove that he is Ugandan. Muganga broke down in tears at his parents' graveside. While one can sympathize with the pain of losing loved ones, that emotional moment does not address the real questions being asked. The problem is that nobody is disputing Lawrence Muganga's Ugandan citizenship. By all accounts, he was born in Uganda. The issue has never been whether he is Ugandan. The issue is the growing list of inconsistencies in his own story and whether he satisfies the legal requirements to serve as a minister. Ugandans are asking simple questions. Was Muganga born in Sseeta-Mukono, Butaleja, or Masaka? At different times, different places have been mentioned as his place of birth. Why are there contradictions on such a basic biographical fact? The public is also asking about his citizenship history. Why did he reportedly use a Rwandan passport while living abroad? Why did he allegedly seek asylum in Canada as a Rwandan citizen? These are legitimate questions because they go directly to the issue of nationality and citizenship status. Even if those questions were settled, there remains the legal issue. Muganga knows that Ugandan law places restrictions on holders of multiple citizenships serving in certain high-ranking state positions. His defense has been that he wrote to Canadian authorities expressing his intention to renounce his Canadian citizenship. But a letter of intent is not the same thing as completing the process. The law does not operate on intentions. It operates on facts. Either the citizenship has been renounced according to the law, or it has not. Either the legal requirements have been satisfied, or they have not. That is why taking cameras to a cemetery may generate sympathy, but it does not resolve the legal questions. A graveside visit cannot answer questions about passports, citizenship records, asylum claims, or statutory requirements. I sympathize with Dr. Muganga as a fellow human being. Nobody enjoys seeing a person's family dragged into a public controversy. But sympathy cannot replace the law. If Uganda is to be governed by rules rather than emotions, then the same law must apply to everyone, whether friend or foe, opposition or government ally.
In yet another dramatic twist in the Lawrence Muganga controversy, the man at the center of Uganda's most talked-about citizenship debate has now taken journalists to the graves of his deceased parents in Mukono in an apparent attempt to prove that he is Ugandan. Muganga broke down in tears at his parents' graveside. While one can sympathize with the pain of losing loved ones, that emotional moment does not address the real questions being asked. The problem is that nobody is disputing Lawrence Muganga's Ugandan citizenship. By all accounts, he was born in Uganda. The issue has never been whether he is Ugandan. The issue is the growing list of inconsistencies in his own story and whether he satisfies the legal requirements to serve as a minister. Ugandans are asking simple questions. Was Muganga born in Sseeta-Mukono, Butaleja, or Masaka? At different times, different places have been mentioned as his place of birth. Why are there contradictions on such a basic biographical fact? The public is also asking about his citizenship history. Why did he reportedly use a Rwandan passport while living abroad? Why did he allegedly seek asylum in Canada as a Rwandan citizen? These are legitimate questions because they go directly to the issue of nationality and citizenship status. Even if those questions were settled, there remains the legal issue. Muganga knows that Ugandan law places restrictions on holders of multiple citizenships serving in certain high-ranking state positions. His defense has been that he wrote to Canadian authorities expressing his intention to renounce his Canadian citizenship. But a letter of intent is not the same thing as completing the process. The law does not operate on intentions. It operates on facts. Either the citizenship has been renounced according to the law, or it has not. Either the legal requirements have been satisfied, or they have not. That is why taking cameras to a cemetery may generate sympathy, but it does not resolve the legal questions. A graveside visit cannot answer questions about passports, citizenship records, asylum claims, or statutory requirements. I sympathize with Dr. Muganga as a fellow human being. Nobody enjoys seeing a person's family dragged into a public controversy. But sympathy cannot replace the law. If Uganda is to be governed by rules rather than emotions, then the same law must apply to everyone, whether friend or foe, opposition or government ally.

About