Letter from Abu Mayanja to the Uganda Argus [6 March 1958]


Letter from Abu Mayanja to the Uganda Argus [6 March 1958]
The threat by the Kabaka’s Government to sabotage direct elections for Legislative Council in Buganda is so full of ugly possibilities for the future that it is high time somebody did some very straight talking to the reactionary elements in Buganda who seem to imagine that somehow Buganda can contract out of the 20th century, -and revert to a system of administration when the efficiency of guns used to be tested on human beings.
   These elements are ‘seeking to block the development of democracy in Buganda whilst pretending to pay lip-service to its principles. An example of this was the attempted intimidation of Makerere students by the Lukiko speaker when the former demonstrated against the reject of direct elec  tions to the Lukiko. The Katikiro’s admonition of those who dared to criticize the speech from the Throne is another pointer in the same direction.  So, too, is the recent statement by the clan leaders threatening those joining political parties with expulsion from the, clans. Nor is it purely coincidental that leaders of the political parties have been subjected to a spate of denigration and prosecutions – only to be acquitted after their reputations had been tarnished.  Sir, it is not at all fanciful to see in these and other instances the presence of a plan not only to sabotage democracy within Buganda, but also to seek to entrench the anti-democratic system by cutting Buganda from the rest of Uganda where it might be subjected to democratic influences. I am not saying that it is wrong for anyone to beagainst democracy; the world is only too full of examples of anti-demo­cratic regimes. What I am pleading for is that we should recognize these facts for what they are. I am also appealing to those who think in this way to come out in the open and tell the country exactly what they believe in.
If they want Buganda to go back to the 18th century, with the Kabaka ruling through hand-picked men and clan heads, let them say so – they owe it to the country to speak the truth. I also think that the notion that the Kabaka’s Government – which is but part of the Government of Uganda – can defy the latter is a matter so grave that it must be clarified and the correct position authoritatively stated. 
There is grave responsibility which these events cast on the Protectorate Government. There is obviously a clash of objectives between those who want to see a democratic system developing in Buganda , and   those who do not. 
It would be dangerously tempting for the Protectorate Government either to observe a benevolent neutrality, or to playoff one faction against the other.  I hope the Protectorate Government will realize that it has a duty to pursue with vigour those policies calculated to fulfill Britain ‘s mission in her dependencies – to take Uganda to democratic self-government.
I hope that the Government will take this attitude not only in the full confidence that history is on its side, but also with the knowledge that it has the unstinting support of the overwhelming majority of the educated Baganda who will struggle tooth and nail to resist the reimposition of feudal tyranny based on the debasement of the human personality and the vagaries of the so-called customary law.
I should like to warn our reactionary rulers that they are running a great danger of discrediting our traditional institutions, and thus making itimpossible for many of us to reform and adapt what is good in them to the conditions of modern life.
I also wish to address a word of warning to the forward-looking, edu­cated Baganda.  I think we intellectuals (yes, though some people may laugh at this word) – I think we intellectuals have been much too timid so far. I think we have allowed ourselves the luxury of sleeping in strange beds for too long; I think we have compromised our position much too much; I think it is not too soon for us to declare from the hilltops what we believe in.
Speaking for myself I have crossed the Rubicon. I have set my face firmly against any autocracy whether it be foreign and imperialist or native and feudal. I stake my future and dedicate my life to the realization of democratic principles in my coup try no matter from which side the obstacles may emanate. This is a declaration of political faith, and I call on other intellectuals to do likewise.
Abu Kakyama Mayanja


About ekitibwakyabuganda

Ba Ssebo ne ba Nyabo, Twebaza Abaganda bonna abulumulirwa Obuganda . Era twebaza ne mikwano gya Buganda gyonna wonna wegiri munsi yonna. Omukutu guno gwatandikibwawo nga e’kigendererwa kwe kuyigiriza abantu ebintu ebikwatagana no’Buganda era nokuwanyisiganya ebilowozo nebanaffe abatali Baganda. Abaganda ne mikwano gya Buganda mukozese omukisa guno muwereze ebirowozo byamwe no’bubaka bwona obunaagasa Abaganda na’baana Buganda berizala mu maaso eyo. Obumu ku bubaka obuwerezebwa ku mukutu guno bugyibwa mukuwanyisiganya ebirowozo okubera kumukutu gwa Ugandan’s at Heart (UAH) Forum ogwatandikibwawo Mwami Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba. Era twebaza muzukulu wa Kintu ne Nnambi ono olw’omulimu gwakoledde bana Uganda bonna abali e’bunayira mungeri yo kubagatta mu byempuliziganya no’kutumbula okukolaganira awamu.

11 responses »

  1. Hi.

    As usual Lance Corporal Otto demonstrates his (sometimes) half baked craving for half truth and partial view and analysis of certain subjects. If only he cared to, then L/Cpl. Otto would have given the full picture of Abu Mayanja’s political thoughts on Buganda by adding that the same Muyanja crossed over and became Minister for Education in the government of the Kabaka on 15 December, 1959.

    Similarly, L/Cpl. Otto should have given the counter statement made by the same Abu Mayanja to the press on 3/10/1961 in which he defended the decicion reached at the Lancaster constitution conference that there would be no direct election to the Legislatice Assembly in Buganda. Instead there would be a direct Lukiiko election and then the Lukiiko itself would determine Buganda’s representative in the Legislative Assembly. Criticising the DP over the issue Abu Mayanja said “While I agree that direct election was a good practice, that does not turn it into a principle or a fetish as the DP is taking it. The DP is simply being naive”, Uganda Argus 3/10/1961..

    L/Cpl. Otto also chose to ignore the remarks which president Museveni made recently in the wake of the riots, in relation to the Regional Tier system of “devolved” government. The president was reported as saying Abu Mayanja and Suleiman Kiggundu were the two individuals who adviced the Kabaka’s government not to accept the Regional Tier system.

    So ask L/Cpl. Otto that in the end did Abu Mayanja cross any rubicon?

    This also brings me to my observation of Mr. Edward Mulindwa. Mulindwa is obviousely very critical of HH the Kabaka and the Mengo government. However, a closer observation of Mulindwa’s criticism of Mengo and the Kabaka reveals that it is usually based on genuine concerns for the Kingdom of Buganda. Moreover, it shows that Mulindwa has not given up on Mengo, so to say. I am therefore willing to bet my life (may God grant it) that in less than ten (10) years Edward Mulindwa will become one of the strongest supporters of the Kabaka and the Buganda Kingdom governement.


    Pilipo Oruni

  2. Pilipo,

    My good (expired) Major Sabiiti Mutengesa, in his mind, believes he has the monopoly of access to archives, so as to pick and choose which line of confusion he can advance to gullible UAH forumists. Luckily, we have sharp and alert forumists like you to obliterate the (expired) Major’s designs, with concrete incontravertible evidence. Remember the Bwaipopo story, he still failed to offer the other side of the debate despite your humble request, explaining clumsily away with an analogy of military warfare. He must think that everyone on UAH is a fool, who he can afford to despise and ignore, yet demand urgent reaction to his postings. The arrogance and incoherence of this man know no boundaries, no wonder even his erstwhile thief-friends so it fit to kick this soldier up and out of business. He interestingly chooses, among all countries, to go to a monarchy instead, which is supposed to be anasthema to the good (expired) Major. What more evidence of incoherence of mind would you want? Major Sabiiti Mutengesa’s PhD (Permanent head Damage) is really justified.


  3. Mr Musisi,

    On the Mwaipopo preamble to the claims I was making, what I put to you were the merits of unitarism; the demerits of faederalism and the requisites of federalism. I did this in the context of a debate on what system Uganda should adhere to in the present circumstances. I am for unitarism and not for federalism and I outlined the reasons, bullet by bullet why I am not for federalism and rather, for unitarism. You and others say you support federalism. Why don’t you give us the merits of federalism and the demerits of unitarism?

    You are saying: “….he still failed to offer the other side of the debate despite your humble request…” To offer the other side of the debate?!!!!!! Don’t you really see how intellectually deprived you are, Dr Lwetutte? Is it the duty of your opponent in debate to help you to substantiate your claims for you? That is why I employed the analogy of the attack and the defence. A debate is an anlogous contest. The person attacking you does not help you to dig your trenches.

    Of course you add: “…..the arrogance and incoherence of this man know no boundaries, no wonder even his erstwhile thief-friends so it fit to kick this soldier up and out of business.” You are concentrating more on abusive language than on supporting your claims, then you turn around to say when you demand for federalism, the unitarist should be the one to help you to paint the glorious picture of the paradise called federalism! You are such a wonderful intellectual. I still urge you to study the pitfalls of logical fallacies at this link: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/.

    What I have in mind as the country you mean as the monarchy is Britain, where the person you have chosen to conflate with me lives. If you help us to look closely at British history, you will learn that monarchy ended in the evening of the Tudor Dynasty, way back in 1603. Within the womb of Tudor rule, middle classes emerged in the industrial centres of the south, in Hull, Bath, Bristol etc and of course London itself. That effectively ended monarchy. I am sure you know about the tussles between the Cavaliers and the round heads. Don’t you? Those were the royalist slugging it out with the new bourgeoisie. Monarchy was finished then. The face of Britain changed, in (especially) England the tide turned against the rule (and not reign!) of monarchs, hence the reverses suffered by the Stuarts throught the 17th Century…the regicide of the Cromwellian years, and the “Lubiri attacks” of the Major Generals, and the 10+ years interregnum. If you checked out a little bit of that history, you would be a little bit inhibitted in your claims, and you would certainly have less room for invective.

    Bottom line, the royals in Britain reign. They do not rule. They are not monarchs! They still exist because Britain has had alot more time for nationbuilding than say the continent. Tell us your story about the French Bourbons or the Prussian Hohenzollerns. Whenever the British royals are erroneously referred to as a monarchy, they are never called an “executive monarchy”.

    Back home, RM Mutebi’s hangerons want him to step beyond reigning to ruling. They also think (like you do Dr Lwetutte) that a Buganda monarch will be comparable to a British monarch! Of course every now and then you refer to the Queen of England (!), as though England is the Kingdom; while she is the the Queen of the United Kingdom. Kabaka Vs Queen is comparing ovacado with fenne. In the meantime, let us watch and see who the Kabaka of Uganda shall be.

    As for the Abu Mayanja letter, you must have not seen Mr Kateregga’s comments. If you saw them, you did not take notice.

    Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

  4. Otto,

    Major Sabiiti Mutengesa, you write: “If you help us to look closely at British history, you will learn that monarchy ended in the evening of the Tudor Dynasty, way back in 1603…[b]ottom line, the royals in Britain reign. They do not rule. They are not monarchs!”

    So, to you Britain is Republic then? If it isn’t, then what is it?

    Then, in the same breath, you go on to say: “They also think (like you do Dr Lwetutte) that a Buganda monarch will be comparable to a British monarch!”.

    Is Britain now back being a monarch, a mere couple paragraphs?

    Can you ever state you stuff with any degree of consistence and coherence?

    Mwaipopo: what makes you think that witholding part of the information that makes a whole is an intellectual debate? The last time I looked, that was primary school quizz. True intellectuals do not win debates through trickery, by witholding relevant information in your possession. Mwaipopo must have offered both sides of the story. Be brave, and put all the facts on the table as given to you by Mwaipopo and now you are deluding yourself about your intellectual prowess by concealing that information. Put all the sides on the table, and crash them even those against your argument intellectually, as opposed to hiding them. That is trickery and dishonestly winning a what is supposedly an intellectual debate – it is childish. While we all appreciate your military skills and experience as Major, who plausibly should even have been elevated to a General, invoking milatary analogies in every debate can sometimes be inapropriate or even unwelcome.


  5. Mr Musisi (JS Lwetutte “PhD”),

    1/9 I pointed out to you that monarchy in Britain ended when, within the womb of Tudor tranquility, England underwent vertical differentiation, leading to the emergence of the middle class: merchants, financciers, log distance travellers, craftsmen and nascent industrialists. The content of the social order that is presided over by monarchs had been irreversibly expunged. Monarchy, “rule by one” was dying, and the age of rule by the public was ushered in…republic…res publica…of the public.

    2/9 Whether you think Britain is a republic or not very much depends on your philosophical outlook, particularly, if you have a grasp of the distinction between form and essence i.e., the outward appearance of objects, processes and phenomena; and their inner essence or content.

    3/9 In even the most pedestrain political discourse you can find around, it is a well-known fact that the difference between a republic like the United States and a liberal parliamentary democracy like Britain is merely in form, but not in content. This has led to the emergence of the term “Crowned Republic” to characterise the Britain that you always refer to as the living exemplar of monarchy. Power in Britain derives from elected representatives and that is all that matters. The people rule through their representatives. The royals have been preserved merely as an asante, or pension for their historical role in superintending the transition from the irrationalities of diffused feudal power to cetralisation of authority that is the hallmark of modern polties.

    4/9 And yes. I made reference to “a Buganda monarch” and “a British monarch” and you found that inconsistent with my earlier remark that British royals are not monarchs. To you, by “a British monarch” you think I am referring to the reigning queen; or in Buganda’s case you think I am referring to RM Mutebi. Hence your inquiry: “Is Britain now back being a monarch, a mere couple paragraphs? Can you ever state you stuff with any degree of consistence and coherence?” First, Britain cannot be a monarch, like you are stating. It can only be a monarchy. Secondly, take note of how I employ the indefinite article “a” while referring to the monarchs, but not the definite article “the”. I used a determiner (“a”) that expresses nonspecificity of reference.

    5/9 The least that a logical interlocutor would have done would have been to ask me which particular monarch I had in mind. In Buganda’s case, I would definitely exclude RM Mutebi, his father EL Mutesa and DM Chwa. The last Buganda monarch was Kabaka Mwanga. That is common knowledge, especially for those who recognise the distinction between form and essence; byoya byanswa and real nswa (I refer you to mine, “Ekitibwa kyafadda”).

    6/9 Finally, you say, when I do not help you – my adversary in debate – to substantiate your contentions, assertions and claims then I am debating “dishonestly winning a what is supposedly an intellectual debate – it is childish”. You tell me to “Put all the sides on the table”; “win debates through trickery”; “primary school quizz” etc, etc. Now, Dr Lwetutte, what you do not realise is that you are actually lowering this debate to a level below that of primary school.

    7/9 I remember in P.5 we used to have these debates on topics like “Fire is better than water”. There would be two proposers and two opposers and a chairman. You would stand up and start: “Mr Chairman, two principle proposers and opposers, ladies and gentlemen and others. As I am standing here kanyansically, the situation is ungendecable……”…and then you gave the reasons why you support your side of the debate, and demolish all the reasons of the other side. Kwisha! The audience would then vote on the winning side..and then, bawe obugalo! No insults, no tantrums. If you did that, you would get kibooko…for being a BBC….Badly Broughtup Child…bakukuliza muddebe? (were you raised in a debe?)…so the headmaster would ask you as he spanked you.

    8/9 You, Dr Lwetutte have taken matters to the level of kindergarten, where if somebody saw that they were about to lose the “jaala”..tossing the cotyledons of beans, they would throw a tantrum, spit in the face of the winner-to-be, grab the cotyledons and throw them away and either cry, or start calling you and your mother, and your siblings, and your clan all sorts of names…birabe, eeeeh, bifanana kapa, mma wakyo afanana effumbe, ewammwe mulya’emmese, onzibye, eeh! etc. Just listen to yourself: Otto is a “cocky sod”, “permanent head damage”, “thief ejected from the kitchen”, “nepheloco…”, etc etc. Eh eh banangye! Musajja ggwe tokoowa?

    9/9 You say you support federalism. Tell us why. You challenged me to tell you why I support unitarism and oppose federalism, I told you why. Now you want me to show “maturity” by giving the merits of a system of government to which I do not subscribe! La! Why should I be turned into your intellectual crutch? Are you a mere zealot? As you make claims in a debate, so you must support them! Substantiating your claims is not your opponents’ business. Kweli Ssebo tokiraba? …….and, and, and: in a way, ours here is a mocrocosm of the Ntebe Vs Mmengo impasse……..

    Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

  6. Otto,

    Major Sabiiti Mutengesa, you write: “…in a way, ours here is a “mocrocosm” (sic) (did you want to say macrocosm incidentally?) of the Ntebe Vs Mmengo impasse” – indeed, only that you, Major Sabiiti Mutengesa, lack the Kalashnikov to forcefully shove your views down my throat and even picking speck from my eye when a log is stuck in yours by the incessant foul cries – you would block me from this forum if you were in Entebbe for “using abusive language”, wouldn’t you?

    The stratification of society, among which you include “financciers” (sic) (you probably wanted to say financiers?) has nothing to do with whether a state is a monarch or republic. The deciding factor, sir, is how the country is governed constitutionally. The last time I checked, the United Kingdom of Great Britain was a Constitutional monarchy, whose head of state an unelected Regina (Queen) with (royal) prerogative powers, entrenched in the British Constitution, at par with of Acts of parliament under within the operative doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Period. Your convoluted explanations, repetitions etc are neither here nor there. In Buganda we have no absolute monarch either.

    I would only engage you in debate on the essence and merits of federo if you reveal the other side of Mwaipopo’s lecture, not because I am being awkward, but because I am making a principled point. I hate to think that you are unable to crush these merits intellectually on this forum, rather akin to M7 and co. failing to take on Nambooze intellectually and co. and resorting to arresting and charging them with trumped up charges. My consolation, though, is that you, Major Sabiiti Mutengesa, luckily have no access these coercive means around here.


  7. Mr Musisi,

    Neither did I intend to mean a macrocosm…it is a microcosm…”meaning a miniature representation”: is that abusive?

    “The stratification of society, among which you include “financciers” (sic) (you probably wanted to say financiers?) has nothing to do with whether a state is a monarch or republic.” Now, focusing on the more constructive aspects of that remark, what you are stating exactly summarises our predicament here in these debates: our vision of what politics is all about. Your view is that “The deciding factor, sir, is how the country is governed constitutionally”. Where do constituions come from…even before we ask you to tell us about the British constitution that is implied in your argument? Constitutions are codifications of the wishes of the dominant groups in society. They are crafted here on earth by certain individuals with concrete aspirations of particular groups. Socio-economic groups emerge, while others fade. Constituions and all other aspects of the “social superstructure” change in concert. I see you turning a constitution into some kind of fettish, yirizi!

    For Britain, even when you go back to the Magna Carta…way back in 1215, that document was forced onto King John to essentially tell him that he was not a single ruler (monarch) ….above the law. His wings were being clipped by barons, long before the Stuart reign when as you know in 1688 the middle classes told King James to behave or face the fate of Charles I. The same applies to the 1100 Charter of Liberties slapped on Henry I. And the class that championed all these had to emerge first and foremost. Those charters were an embodiment of the interests of those classes.

    In Buganda you have no absolute monarch, you are right. To have an absolute monarch, you must have a monarch in the first place. As I say, Buganda last had a monarch in 1897: Kabaka Danieri Basammula-Ekkere Mwanga II Mukasa. Now, you have a head of the royal family. A monarch is a ruler.: archy: to rule and you know what ruling is about. Yours reigns; he does not rule. Let him cross the line from reigning to ruling……………

    Britain never ever got an absolute monarch along the lines of the continent principally because of the counterveiling force of parliament….which was the index of the will of the extensive liberal infrastructure of the middle calsses I have talked about. Not the constitution! The constituion is just “ebigenderewa”…icing on the cake. As you know, you have to bake the cake first.

    I am sure you are aware of the English civil war that centred around the struggle between the fading monarch and parliament. And who made up parliament? I hope you have grasped the whole notion of “crowned Republic” and how it is displacing the byoya byanswa notion of “constituional monarchy”.

    On “the other side of what Mwaipopo told me”: there is none. You support federalism; tell us its merits…(or its other childish variety of federo yaffe, as those a form of national government can be private property of one clamorous section of the polity). Debunk/deconstruct the merits of unitarism that I have put to you; the demerits of federalism and what I gave as the requisites of federalism. No tantrums, no insults, no smokescreens, Dr Lwetutte PhD.

    You say:

    “I hate to think that you are unable to crush these merits intellectually on this forum…”

    I am not a magician to crush the merits of federalism when you, its supporters, are not telling us those merits. On the other hand, I should be challenging you to intellectually crush the merits of unitarism. I have already put them to you.

    You say:

    “M7 and co. failing to take on Nambooze intellectually and co”

    Which “M7”; and which “take on”, and which “Nambooze”, and which “intellectually”? La!

    Coercion is not all about brandishing the instruments of violence. When You make a claim, there ought to be a compelling force in your conscience to substantiate that claim. If your opponent in a debate makes a claim, it is incumbent upon you to counter that claim with well reasoned arguments and not insults, smokescreens, red herrings and all manner of logical fallacies. Your conscience should constantly compel you, coerce you to deal with opponents claims squarely and fairly. That is how I view coercion in this context. But of course, I am talking about a conscience here….the search for which often tends to become a scrounge for a needle from a needle stack.

    Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

  8. Otto,

    Major Sabiiti Mutengesa, you write: “I see you turning a constitution into some kind of fettish, yirizi!” – in all countries, a constitution enjoys a sacred status and is not to be flouted lightly, with an elaborate prescribed means of effecting any changes to it – indeed a kind of “fettish” (sic) (fetish) or a “yirizi”. Forget the M7 attitude towards our constitution.

    Constitutions being “codifications of the wishes of the dominant groups in society.” has since been superceded by the need for incorporating unversally accepted local and global values. Why else would most constitutions adopt the doctrince of precedence of international law to the extent of the inconsistence where municipal is inconsistent. The local values would, no doubt be in reference to local reality, such as cultural and religious expediences. Thus, taking the example of the United KINGDOM of Great Britain and Northern Ireland where you live, you get the monarch integrated into the Constitution with royal prerogatives that are arrogated the power of a parliametary Act and cannot be challenged in any court of law. This would sound like a paradox given the socio-political sophistication of the British society, but, alas, you find it entrenched constitutionally. I think Buganda is yearning for the recognition of similar magnitude, especially if you yourself agree that a constitution “[codifies] the wishes of the dominant groups in society”, your republican inclinations notwithstanding.

    As an unelected head of state which is a Kingdom (a monarchy), the Queen clearly rules – her role is not at all “akasiimo” or “pension” as you suggest – it is constitutional, and personally, I fail to see the mileage in distinguishing between to “rule” and “reign”, since a ruler will still be a Soveregn, and to reign is to exercise sovereign power, albeit limited by constitutional prescriptions.

    As for coercion, it necessarily presuposes the act of compelling one to act contrary to personal wishes under the use or threat of the use of force, under some degree of duress.

    Federo merits:

    1) Sharing of power with central government – it implies locally taking genuine control of affairs, given that these powers cannot be taken away at the whim of the central government;
    2) The freedom to go own way should that need arise – provides as safeguard against abuse of the federal constitution and freedoms enshrined therein;
    3) Roots out for good the colonial/imperial designs for which Uganda was cobbled together to fit their imperial economic and political interests;
    4)Restores the original politico-administrative entities as they were before the advent of the colonialism, and gives genuine recognition to local culture, social values, economic clout and political reality of the locals;
    5) Restores the pre-colonial inter-ethnic relations, based on mutual respect and interdependency, now enhanced with a single national destiny as a unified country;
    6) Enhances the feeling and sense of ownership of the federo entity and the resultant hardwork;
    7) Local resources are genuinely used to benefit the local entity;
    8) Brings services closer to the people in a way that is impossible under devolution, since federo affords greater leeway in terms of revenue collection and planning
    9) Aids proper local planning, optimum budgeting and priority development projects;
    10) Enhances local accountability and curbs central government corruption
    11) Creates genuine stability in diversity, and therefore peace and prosperity, something that has eluded us for the past 47 years of an imposed colonial-inspired Uganda, that has failed to take into consideration the peculiarities of the peoples of Uganda as they were before the colonialists came. Just last month, Uganda was at it again with riots and destruction of property, and imflamation of ethnic feelings – this kind of scenario will likely be controlled by the federo system.
    12) There will be no clamouring for the National Presidency since the real power will be at the level of local federo entities.

    And the pearl of Africa will genuinely rise and brightly shine again as the imperialists found it, when they first set foot on Ugandan soil. The current colonial model is simply no good for us.


  9. I assume many people on this forum are learned. In many things that Governments do, they use surveys otherwise there is no reason why we should argue over and over about federo, basing our reasoning on Odoki’s Commission findings. Those of you who imagine of implementing policies in future Governments, you ought to know that this is sufficient to endorse the federo arrangement; and it is because it was sufficient that the NRM actors smuggled in the decentralisation system.

    Those brothers of ours who are out of Uganda for greener pastures are there in most cases because of wrong resource allocation and deliberate misuse of funds by the central governments. Many people can get better pay through just policy review among which federo can go along way in getting each region realise its growth poles and setting to grow. It is unfortunate that we have to lecture to some people, but I think it is a worthy obligation. We are advocating for federo among other reasons so that people in the areas that federate are able to get resources which would have gone to the centre and be misused there; hence have these resources directly used in development efforts deemed a priority in the federo state. For instance, it is on record that some of the first graduates in Uganda went out on scholarships awarded by Buganda Government. When a region therefore realises an area which is not in the central governments’ priority, from the resources retained by the federal state, the state can use the funds to realise their priorities.

    Willy Kituuka

  10. Federo has nothing to do with size – and in the definition of Federo there is allusion to size, because it is irrelevant. Have you looked at Switzerland? If not, do so and come back to me. Switzerland is a very small country. Germany, before reunification, as the same size as Uganda, but had a very effective Federo system. Having a Federo system does not preclude having a central government – perhaps you are misconstruing the concept of federo, which is a classic mistake anyway. As you know, there is simply no state without a government, nor is it possible at all. When I talk of reconstituting Uganda, I mean sitting together and agreeing something workable, not apportioning every tribe a King. Indeed there are many Federo countries without kings at all. But leaving Uganda as it is today is not an option, I think you agree, since it has not worked for the people of Uganda, except causing misery and death and turmoil.
    musisis bosco

  11. It?s actually a great and helpful piece of information. I am glad that you just shared this helpful information with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s