Firstly, it is quite astonishing if not corrupt intellectually to use literature selectively to character-assassinate buganda leaders like Ssekabaka Mutesa. Secondly, it is interesting that we are willing to believe our former colonialists if the issues can malign Baganda. It is the same Baganda abhorrence brigade. Thirdly, the accounts of Kabaka’s incest, etc are gossip, emanating from what was clearly a personality contest between Kabaka Mutesa on the one hand, and Cohen as well as Lyttelton on the other hand. These two colonial personalities hated Kabaka, and would therefore never say anything positive. Check page 197 again, where abuse is passed upon Kabaka Mutesa – those statements are not referenced; so they are not fact. I see that there are other referenced documents abusive of Kabaka Mutesa cited by the enemies of buganda. This is not new – there are actually many such documents, and not only about Mutesa but almost about all leaders. Unfortunately, we have more of the colonialists accounts. The author (Ronald Hyam) does not reference Mutesa’s book for example, neither are there any quotations from any Muganda! A fair judgement would definitely be to get Kabaka Mutesa’s account or some accounts from some of his Baganda subjects about what happened.Thre isn’t a single Ugandan referred to in the passage that buganda enemies references(in these pages by Ronald Hyam), and yet, they wants us to belive that they are an authority about history, wirtten by and accounted for by exclusively the colonialists. It is high time we wrote our own history!!!
Finally, if indeed Sekabaka Mutesa was that bad – so what? What should happen? The fact remains, he was the Kabaka of Buganda, respected for standing up against the colonialists. Just as some Ugandans love Museveni and/or Obote, I for one, love Sekabaka Mutesa II with pride and valour. He was very courageous in times when the rest of leaders in Uganda were silent, and he instigated the agitation for independence. I believe that very few of you his critics will ever achieve even a minute fraction of what he achieved or did. May his soul rest in eternal peace.
By the way, there are so many books about these incidents. Some of such books appear in the footnotes of the reference cited here. There one by Professor Mutibwa, a Ugandan – it could be a little more aunthetic, but has lots of faceless heresay as well. Nonetheless, from the same reference, there are within the same pages some rather startling accounts, which would in fact seem like coming from text, different from what the enemies of buganda read.
…In any case he sought separate independence for Buganda with a fixed timetable. This was in direct conflict with the British objective of a self-governing unitary Uganda. In which Buganda was geographically the keystone: its secession it would be a bit like taking England out of the United Kingdom.
…Few field officers supported Cohen.
… The resident in Buganda, R.E. Stone, for example, was much more sympathetic to the Kabaka, feeling that he was pulled in two directions at once by conflicting royalties, and managing a difficult situation well.
Lyttelton had a hard decision to make. …..between sacking the Kabaka and sacking the governor. Cohen was the darling of the Labour Party…. So, although he had the gravest doubts, Lyttelton represented the Kabaka to his colleagues as an intransigent weakling, in defiance of HMG, ….
The legality of the action was tested in court. Prof. Keith Hancock led an independent inquiry, …. Cohen changed his mind. After a visit, Lennox-Boyd felt the balance of arguments for relenting, ‘always close, had definitely shifted to allowing the Kabaka’s return’, …
But ironically the court ruling was that despite the Kabaka’s having been ‘disloyal’ and therefore his deposition therefore justified, it was HMG who had technically acted in breach of the 1900 agreement.
Nevertheless, by underestimating the strength of Bagandan national pride, traditional royalities and sense of honour, and by deporting the Kabaka, only to restore him a year later, Cohen was strongly criticised, even though prepared to be apologetic. …. Perhaps he was right to insist on challenging Buganda separatism. But equally it could be argued that Mutesa showed just as much courage ….
Essentially this controversy, between British prestige and Ganda honour, boiled down to a matter of personalities…
Then follows Otto’s selected delegatory quotes, which the writer states clearly were ‘beliefs’ rather than facts. By the way, I hear roumors of incest still existing.