Meanwhile the official Congolese version presented by a a senior military official, Colonel Eddy Kapend, was that he was alive and well and running the country although "something had hapened". Another diplomatic source, who preferred to remain anonymous, said that President Kabila and his son had been shot in the palace by a bodyguard and that Kabila Senior was dead. Then a further statement came from the Belgian foreign Minister Louis Michel that there had not been a full coup but that Kabila was dead, shot during an argument with senior generals.

By Wednesday, the French, British and Belgian governments officially confirmed the death of Kabila but the Congo Government said only that he had been taken to another country for treatment.

The version from the Zimbabwe Defence Minister Moven Mahachi was that President Kabila had died in the air en route to Zimbawae for treatment. This was denied by Kabila's spokeman Dominique Sakombi who said that he was abroad for treament and that his son would assume power while he was recovering.

By Thursday morning, the Congolese government officially confirmed the death of President Kabila.

The Ugandan government expressed regret over the assasination but not a deep regret. Their statement was imediately followed up with the statement that he was "very probably a major roadblock" to peace in the Congo. Almost simultaneously the Congo's Defence Minister, Godefroid Tchamlesso accused the Rwandan and Ugandan governments, saying "This attack, which took place less than 24 hours ago, was ordered by Uganda, Rwanda, and Congo-Brazzaville." But despite official regrets it seems nobody is too devastated by the man's death.

And that brings us back to the who done it question. Confusion following an assasination is understandable which would account for the contradiction in statements coming from all quarters. The confusion could also stem from a badly coordinated assasination atttenpt.

First you do the deed, then you issue the official statement. The death of Laurent Kabila Take Two. If the murder wasn't committed by the bodyguard in the palace with a gun then who?

This, like any good mystery, has a number of people with sufficient motive.

First, it just might have been the senior military officials. According to LeMonde Diplomatique Kabila had not even been able to form a national army, and his troops were underpaid and disgruntled. Also they were not winning the war.

Then again it might have been Uganda with or without the aid of Rwanda. Museveni of Uganda had been investigated by the UN for his part in the illegal exploitation of the Congo's considerable mineral wealth as had the the nations of Rwanda, an ally of Uganda's, and Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe, which are allies of of the now dead Congo leader, according to Deutsche Presse-Agentur. So maybe the defense minister, Godefroid Tchamlesso was right in his accusation of Uganda and Rwanda. And then maybe he did it to cover his own complicity.

So if it wasn't in the palace by the senior military officials with a gun and it wasn't by the governments of Uganda and Rwanda with an order it might have been on the tarmac in the plane with any number of concoctions. In political life, one should always consider one's friends. Zimbabwe ally, Robert Mugabe is increasingly unpopular in his own country due partially to this expensive war. Only a week earlier the Zimbabwe Independent ran the headline, "State to half size of army". By orders of the IMF it would seem, and that order would also have to include some of the 11,000 Zimbabwe soldiers currently in the Congo. So maybe Mugabe was a bit fed up with his friend and and told the doctors to, well, you know.

So if it wasn't the "senior military officials " with a gun in the palace and it wasn't the governments of Uganda and Rwanda with an order and it wasn't the doctors of Zimbabwe in the plane on the tarmac with a concoction, who was it? Don't know.

Could have been anybody.