Monthly Archives: February 2010

The most peaceful era Uganda ever had post political independence was during the regime of Sir Edward Muteesa


King Freddie

The most peaceful era Uganda ever had post political independence was during the regime of Sir Edward Muteesa save the Obote dirty schemes that he Obote was striving to hatch against the Kabaka until he succeeded in April-May 1966 when he attacked the Kabaka’s palace.

While the rest of Uganda was peaceful during Obote’s first regime, Buganda was unhappy because Dr. Obote had abolished kingdoms and the Kabaka Muteesa was in exile in London. The Baganda felt marginalized save those who embraced UPC and were given government positions.
There are those who think that DP + Baganda + Acholi; a reference to the fact that DP is mainly a Catholic and Baganda party and that with Nobert Mao who hails from Acholi – cannot work to rule Uganda.
To those who think like this I have thi sto say: stereotyping is undesirable. In Uganda’s population are more Catholics than any other religion, unless if in recent years Christain evangelicals (the Born-Agains) have gained more numbers than Roman Catholicism.
If there are more Catholics in Uganda I do not see why these catholics let the DP in theb hands of Baganda for decades. Where were they? Certainly, there are more Catholics in Uganda outside of Buganda than there are in Buganda. Why didn’t they use their votes to elect anyone outside of Buganda to head the DP?
To say that the Baganda and the Acholis cannot rule Uganda is absurd. Again this is another of the stereotyping habit some people unfortunately have, Before Museveni who ever thought that a man who hails from Ankore could have been Uganda’s president for over twenty years? Museveni has been voted into office three times so far not by his kinsmen of Ankore but Ugandans generally.
The Baganda cannot rule only because they are marginalized by the rest of Ugandans out of envy and jealousy on account of Buganda’s geographical location as the center of the country’s politics and seat of government.
In addition, the fact the Baganda have by numbers been the most educated by the time of independence, and may be up until today simply because they happen to be the biggest single tribe in Uganda.
Of course it is not because they are smarter than anyone. They were favored by natural circumstances. So, the rest of ethnic groups usually do not vote for a Muganda to become the nation’s top leader. Is it a kind of political punishment based upon envy or what?.
The fact is that even if each adult Ganda voted for a Muganda in the DP President General’s elections, they would win versus  the rest of Ugandans. The only reason a Ganda has been elected DP President General over the years could be that Ugandans in other ethnicities have not been participating in the Party Elections; may be they have not always been sensitized and mobilized to vote.
For this reason it is wrong to accuse the Ganda people for monopolizing the Democratic Party over the decades. If Ugandans in other parts of the country awaken and get mobilized into the politics of their nation, there is no way for the Baganda to win elections as a people if other ethnicities do not elect them. But that would be tribalistic marginalization of a people.
Those who accuse the Gandas in this matter forget the Ugandan political history where the Ganda have been shown to transcend ethnic lines and elect non-Ganda Ugandans to political leadership. From Obote to Museveni and now to Nobert Mao the Gandas have demonstrated they can vote any one irrespective of ethnic background.
And therefore, to accuse them and keep poiting fingers to them for every political imbalances in the country is wrong and unfair.
Out close to 30 millions Ugandans, there are only about 4.5 million Baganda. There is no way this percentage of people can control the nation’s politics the way they are being portrayed every time some one wants to apportion political blame.
This is true especially since the 1960s many ethnic Ugandans have been highy educated; during Obote’s two eras, more Langi and Acholi ethnicities became more educated.
During Idi Amin’s era, it was the Lugbaras and Kakwas and the Muslims at large who woke up to academic education. During the Museveni era, we have seen more and more people from the Ankore and Kiga ethnicities getting more educated and joining national politics than ever before.
In such a matrix, there is no way one can stii be blamingthe Baganda for political monopoly in Uganda. The Baganda are hence tired of being blamed thus.
If Ugandans other than the Ganda ethnic group desire to unite to monopoloze Ugandan politics they can very ably do so without having to point finger at the Gandas for any mistake. It is a just a question of poulation demographics or ratio.
Museven has studied this and has taken advantage of it to great lenghts and this is how he wins. If other political leaders want to win in the elections, they need to apply mind-logic recreation to the political game of Uganda.
Personally, I look forward to the day when Ugandans will look to themselves as Ugandans first and this or that ethnic group second. United as Ugandans we can do a great deal for our country than when we continue looking at each other based upon our ethnic backgrounds.
Nepotism exists in Uganda because our leaders have failed to unite us as Ugandans; instead, they resort and lean more to their personal ethnic lines than to our national identity first and foremost. Uganda needs a leader that will build Uganda as a single nation in the spirit and heart of every Ugandan.
Bhuka Bijumiro-Jjumiro

Virginia, USA


One UAH Member,Lord Buhanga, asked me to tell him the time lines that Bunyoro considers in reclaiming lost territory; the framework for determining what they would claim and not claim, etc.
I have enclose for you below a document with a self explanatory title.  The document is very clear on Bunyoro’s grievances which have nothing to do with this common talk of claiming Angola and Zambia which many of you make.
This document was based on the events that followed the 1893 invasion of Bunyoro by a force of British and a large contingent deployed by Mmengo.  There is a book on Compatriotto that gives a full account of that military operation, authored by the commander of the operation, Col. Henry Colville (Korwiiru).  This is the link:
The memo below answers all your questions, and puts to rest that tired argument by many that Bunyoro will lay claim to Rwanda, as though Rwanda was ever part of the Bunyoro Kitara kingdom….hence my reference to the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum.

Refer also to the map that I furnished earlier on.  It very clearly does not include your Rwanda, Toro and all that…

Please also take time to read some of the basic books on Uganda’s political history.  Now that you have at least picked interest in reading up critical thinking, the next thing you have is to study what you must think about critically, lest you spend the rest of your life just talking about this and the other fallacy, without demonstrating concretely why the arguments that you dismiss as fallacies are actually fallacious.  Just saying red herring this, smoke screen that, ad hominem the other, is simply not enough, however much it is an improvement on your past style and the general style on the forum.  But so far I am happy anyway!

Meanwhile, let me wait to hear from you once you have read that document below:

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

US Ambassador visit to Kabaka is not unusual but it may cause problems


kabaka greets the ambassodor at banda

In 1972 the then US Ambassador, his wife, along with Joseph Mubiru ex Bank of Uganda Governor, and Fr Kigundu Editor of Munno newspaper paid a visit to Cardinal Nsubuga. President Iddi Amin was not amused.The visits became regular and Amin dispatched his Chief of Protocol to Cardinal Nsubuga and Mubiru to warn them about hosting the Ambassador and his family frequently in Rubaga.The visits were purely  simple social ones as it turned out. Joseph Mubiru wanted Cardinal Nsubuga to meet his friend the new, US Ambassador (a catholic) to Uganda.  Both were students in New York University.
The visits was too much for Amin, as Mariam Press the publisher of the catholic newspaper Munno of which Fr Kigundu was the Editor continued to be the only widely respected and quoted newspaper at the time with news about Uganda.  What happened to Mubiru and Fr Kigundu is now history.

kabaka escorting the ambassodor

However heads of states and other foreign dignitaries have been paying visits to the seat of Buganda Kingdom for years.  Ali Khan and later his son the Aga Khan paid annual visits to Muteesa.  (His son cannot visit Mutebi today because of his extensive investments in Uganda).  Emperor Haile Selasie of Ethiopia visited the Kabaka of Buganda and many such visits took place.  The Banda visit is a continuation.
Paul Lam
UAH forumist

Demand for federo just won’t go away


Demand for federo just won’t go away

Kabaka of Buganda

MENGO, the seat of Buganda government, is in the throes of a stand-off between the radical and moderate wings of the Kabaka’s men. For now, the moderates seem to have the upper hand, writes Joshua Kato.

Since cultural institutions were restored more than 15 years ago, Buganda Kingdom has perhaps made more demands than other cultural institutions in the country combined. They have demanded and are still demanding for federo (federal status), pieces of land that were taken over by the central government in 1966 and political power for the Kabaka.

So far, they have got back some of the properties that they did not have at coronation in 1993. These include the vast Lubiri palace that was until then occupied by the army, the Bulange, where the Lukiiko sits that was until then occupied by the army as the Republic House, all the other kingdom palaces and the Kabaka’s official 35 square miles of land. Also returned are the multi-billion Masaka Technical Institute, which now houses Mutesa University and the buildings that houses Buganda Royal Institute at Mengo.

In mid-July 2008, the kingdom organised a big conference at Hotel Africana, in which they sought ways of making Buganda better. Prof. Ali Mazrui advised Buganda to adopt the changes in the world order so that they can develop. Maj. Kakooza Mutale asked Buganda to differentiate between respect and power, while Prof. Mahmood Mamdani asked them to put their ‘opponents’ on the defensive, instead of giving the initiative to them all the time. Overall, it was agreed that Buganda, being the dominant tribe in Uganda, should be seen to dominate politically. ‘Fighting’ for political power will occupy the minds of the grey heads at Mengo in the next few years.

history of Buganda
Buganda was one of the most powerful kingdoms in the interlacustrine region, now called the Great Lakes region. It was founded by members of the Babiito, who broke away from Bunyoro around 1500. That makes the kingdom about half a century old.

The kingdom is composed of a Bantu language speaking tribe. At first, Buganda had only four recognisable counties. These included Kyadondo, Busiro, parts of Bulemezi (Nakaseke) and Kyaggwe. However, as her power grew, so did her territory. Wars against Bunyoro saw her capture areas like Buddu, Kooki, Singo, parts of Kyaggwe and Buruli between the 17th and 18th centuries.

When the first white explorers visited between 1865 and 1872, they marvelled at the social, economic and political organisation of the kingdom. They decided to use Buganda as the base for all their operations in the region.
Buganda, then under Kabaka Mutesa I, invited the British to come to the kingdom. It was from Buganda that the British expanded their influence to other parts of present day Uganda.

The key agreements that they made included the 1894 Agreement, that made Buganda a British protectorate and the 1900 Agreement that has up to this day, largely negatively reverberated, not only in the ears of the kingdom leaders, but also in Uganda as a whole. The agreement gave Buganda a special place in what later became Uganda. It was the centre of British influence and in many cases, Buganda’s forces fought alongside British forces as the colonialists expanded their influence.

The manner in which the land was divided in Buganda has through the years proved to have been ill-thought. Of the estimated 19,000 square miles of land in Buganda, 8,000 miles were given to Baganda Kingdom chiefs, around 1,500 to the Protectorate Government and 350 miles to the royal family. About 9,000 were kept by the colonial government. This sharing out created a property class of the landlords and bibanja () owners. Subsequent land laws, for example, the Bibanja and Nvujjo Acts in 1928, the Land Decree of 1975, the Land Act of 1998 and the current land amendments were geared towards creating harmony over the contents of the 1900 Agreement.
The division of power between the Kabaka’s government and the colonialists was later discovered not to have been good. At the time, the Kabaka, Daudi Chwa, was a toddler. He was thus assisted by three regents: Apollo Kaggwa, Zacharia Kisingiri and Stanislas Mugwanya. As the years went by, however, the ineptness of the Buganda establishment became more profound. The assassination of Katikkiro Martin Luther Nsibirwa in the early 1940s and the exiling of Kabaka Sir Edward Mutesa in 1953 were the peak of Buganda’s resistance against the British.
It is this setup that still haunts Buganda and the subsequent central governments of Milton Obote between 1962 and 1971, Idi Amin 1971-79, Milton Obote between 1981 and 1985 and Yoweri Museveni from 1986 to date. It is ironic that Buganda looks at the central governments as a continuation of the colonial administration.

Since independence, Buganda has had at least three confrontations with the central government, but the most serious was the 1966 crisis. That’s when the central government, led by Milton Obote, abolished cultural institutions in Uganda and declared the country a republic. The consequences of this conflict reverberated throughout the country for over 20 years. There were killings at the time, Obote’s overthrow by Amin was supported in Buganda, largely because of Obote’s 1966 actions, the 1981 war in Luwero was also supported partly because of Obote’s 1966 actions. However, when the NRM government came to power, kingdoms were reinstated.

Federo demands
The demand for federo has been going on for the last 15 years. Every election year, for example in 1996, 2001 and 2006, sections of the Mengo establishment have upped their demands and in some cases asked the Baganda to “vote for only those candidates who promise federo”. Radicals at Mengo have even demanded that President Yoweri Museveni’s government either gives Buganda federo or Buganda secedes from Uganda.

“We should return to the 1962 Constitution that gave Buganda federo or we split off the rest of Uganda,” said Yusuf Nsubuga Nsambu, one of the deputy katikkiros of the kingdom.

According to the independence constitution, Buganda had federo. The establishment controlled the agriculture, education and road networks within the region. This, according to Baganda at the time, was an engine for development.

During the constitution-making process in 1994, the demand for federo was one of the salient issues. By the end of it all, a system that gave districts powers to co-operate was agreed upon. However, since Buganda did not like it, it never worked. “What is a charter? What does it mean to us?” wondered Mengo officials.

While kingdoms like Busoga wanted the Charter operationalised, it was not. The fallout was, however, notable. For example, several influential Baganda personalities like Prof. Apolo Nsibambi and Besweri Mulondo were declared traitors. This is because Nsibambi opposed certain Mengo officials who wanted to reject the new Constitution because it had not granted them a federal status.

Mulondo, on the other hand, did not support federo because the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) supported it. He famously referred to the whole situation as “ssemusota guli mu ntamu” (snake in the pot), describing the catch 22 situation in which Buganda was.

Nonetheless, Buganda continued demanding for federo. President Museveni offered to talk. Between 2004 and 2005, there were discussions and meetings between the central government and the Buganda government over the same issue. Museveni led a powerful government team that included Vice-President Prof. Gilbert Bukenya, Prime Minister Prof. Apolo Nsibambi, ministers Amama Mbabazi and Sam Kutesa. The Buganda team was led by Katikkiro Joseph Ssemwogerere, Owekitiibwa Peter Mayiga, Owekitiibwa Apollo Makubuya and Owekitiibwa John Katende.

Like the case was in 1994, however, a regional tier system was agreed upon instead of the much cherished federo. “We met for over 72 hours with these people and agreed to have this regional tier,” Museveni said.

At first, sections in Mengo said it was a wonderful deal. “Ekitono okaayana kiri mu nkwawa (Take what you have been offered while you demand for more),” Katikkiro Joseph Mulwanyamuli Ssemwogerere said.

According to Ssemwogerere, the new system would have given Buganda a budget and control over agriculture, district roads and education supervision. An initial budget of sh26b had been set aside to kick-start it in 2006. Mengo would have had two nkiiko (parliaments) with one purely cultural while the other was political and executive. The political lukiiko was supposed to have an elected Katikkiro.

The regional tier was later rejected by the radicals in Mengo, who called for the awarding of full federo. As a result, the regional tier, that took many hours to debate is yet to be operationalised, although other kingdoms like Bunyoro and Toro have called for its implementation.

It is the failure to get the much-hyped federo and other issues that Buganda has had a total of four katikkiros in the last 15 years. Three of these have come in the last three years. It was after this agreement that long-serving Katikkiro, Ssemwogerere, was removed after 12 years in office. His removal was linked to ‘lack of satisfaction’ among the ‘Baganda’ over his agreement with the central government.

“We cannot have an elected Katikkiro,” declared Daniel Muliika, who took over from Ssemwogerere. Muliika, a re-nowned traditionalist, lasted just one year, before he was replaced with Emmanuel Ssendawula, who was in turn replaced by Eng. John Baptist Walusimbi, a known moderate.

Other regions
One of the biggest failures of Mengo in the last 15 years is overlooking the need to market themselves to other cultural institutions. On many occasions, Buganda has met the central government alone. To other cultural institutions, this is seen as despising them, or giving Baganda a special status. This is why while Buganda demands for federo, other regions are quiet.

Radicals, moderates lock horns at Mengo

WITHIN social and professional circles, he is known as Medard Lubega Sseggona. In political circles, however, he is known as Kalyamaggwa, which is short for akalya amaggwa kekamanya bwekagakyuusa (the animal that feeds on thorns knows best how to turn them over in its mouth, without getting hurt). The proverbial name tells a lot about the character of the youthful lawyer and traditionalist.
Kalyamaggwa represents a new group of youthful radicals at Mengo, the seat of Buganda government. Most of them are graduates and have come into the political limelight through radical Buganda youth groups like Nkobazambogo, which mainly operate in tertiary institutions. Their radical approach has already brought them into conflict with the moderates at Mengo.
The stand-off between the radicals and moderates became apparent during the recent arrest of three Mengo officials, including Kalyamaggwa. The radicals called for drastic action against the Government, while the moderates, led by Katikkiro John Baptist Walusimbi, wanted a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
For now, the moderates seem to have won, since the expected massive public uprising at Bulange did not take place. Instead, an agreement for further talks with the central government was reached.
Since it was the first time in President Yoweri Museveni’s regime for three senior members of the Kabaka’s government to be arrested and detained for a week, a civil uprising by angry Baganda was feared. Business places like Kikuubo were expected to close down and the whole country generally was expected to come to a standstill. At least this is what the youthful members of the vocal Nkobazambogo and Bazzukulu ba Buganda predicted. But to their disappointment, nothing of the kind happened.
“Can you imagine that three of our officials were arrested and nothing happened? Is that how we should handle these liars?” shouted a member of Nkobazambogo, in whose view, the central government officials were the liars.
Besides Sseggona, the Mengo radicals include David Mpanga, a youthful lawyer and son of Joyce Mpanga, an NRM historical, currently in charge of research at the party headquarters. Others are MPs Erias Lukwago, Beti Kamya and Hussein Kyanjo. The trio may not hold any office at Mengo, but their voices and actions have a lot of impact, more than some of the ministers.
Then there is Betty Nambooze, the chairperson of the Civic Education Committee, which is supposed to educate the Kabaka’s subjects about the controversial Land Bill. What all these people have in common is that they belong to the young generation of radical leaders at Mengo.
They are buoyed by two old guards, Deputy Katikkiro Nsubuga Nsambu and former Katikkiro Daniel Muliika. It was Nsambu who first suggested that Buganda break away from Uganda, if it is denied federo status, a sentiment more recently echoed by Kyanjo.
The moderates, who include Walusimbi, Kaaya Kavuma, Charles Peter Mayiga, Emmanuel Ssendawula and Attorney General Apollo Makubuya, would rather see Buganda get her way through negotiations.
Walusimbi is in a big dilemma. He is not a politician. He was elected specifically to implement the kingdom’s development programmes — to get Kabaka’s subjects out of poverty. He is a peace-loving man. During the recent crisis, the radicals were furious that instead of sounding the war drums, the Katikkiro called for calm. Some even accused him of being an NRM supporter, citing various government engineering projects he was involved in.
The Kabaka has got a history of appointing radicals, but he has a bigger history of sacking them as well. In 1996, Duncan Kafeero, hitherto a minister of agriculture in the Mengo establishment was sacked and disowned after he advocated violence against the Government of President Yoweri Museveni.
In 2001, several ministers were sacked after they openly campaigned against Museveni in the presidential elections. They included Joyce Ssebugwawo, now in FDC, Kamala Kanamwangi, Ssewava Sserubiri, and Robert Ssebunya, who has since become an adviser to Museveni.
In 2006, Dan Muliika, who had become openly critical of Museveni, was also sacked. He was sacked largely because he failed to create or to show that he wanted to create harmony between the central government and Mengo. Muliika, who is still influential, especially among the radicals, says it’s fruitless to talk to the central government.
“Talking will not bear any fruit. What will Museveni give us?” he told journalists recently.
Radicals have also had their share of success. In 2005, the moderates, led by Joseph Mulwanyamuli Ssemwogerere then Katikkiro, discussed and agreed to have the regional tier system. However, when they presented it before Mengo, it was rejected. Ssemwogerere and the team that discussed the deal with the Government were later dropped and replaced with Muliika, a sworn radical. Muliika was, however, dropped a year later, because he proved to be ‘too radical’. Who will win this time?

“How can he ask us to remain calm when the Kabaka’s officials are incarcerated?” an enraged member of the Nkobazambogo group asked. Present at Mengo to encourage the demonstrating youths was Beti Kamya. “The Katikkiro should not just tell people to stay calm when a one-year-old is being denied breast milk,” said Kamya, referring to Nambooze’s baby.
Both Nkobazambogo and Bazzukulu ba Buganda tried to mobilise the Kabaka’s subjects to demonstrate at Bulange, but only a few turned up.
“Katikkiro akozewooki ng’abakungu ba Ssabassajja babatulugunya? Ayinza atya obutayita obuganda okukungaana wano okwekalakasa? (What has the prime minister done about the arrest and torture of the Kabaka’s officials? Why hasn’t he called upon the Baganda to demonstrate?)” asked a member of the youth group.
Apart from their age and their background in Nkobazambogo and other radical youth groups, most of these youthful radicals belong to opposition political parties, mainly Democratic Party (DP) and Forum for Democratic Change (FDC).
For example, Erias Lukwago is the DP’s legal adviser, while Betty Nambooze was, until recently, the party’s spokesperson. What riles the Government is a lack of proper distinction between the roles of these people.
“When we defeated them, they withdrew and hid in Mengo,” President Yoweri Museveni laments. When does Nambooze speak as a Mengo official and when does she speak as a DP spokesperson? How will the government she is opposed to counter her statements without being seen as fighting a mukungu (Mengo official)?
The opposition seems to appeal to a wider audience, if they are talking from Mengo, than when they talk from their parties. This is because Mengo has got a much wider audience, which comprises many who support NRM. This is the dilemma facing the Kabaka and Katikkiro on one hand and the central government on the other. Walusimbi and the moderates are calling for more talks with the Government. In fact, Walusimbi met Museveni, in what was seen as a move to lay the ground for a meeting between the Kabaka and the President.
Last week, information came out about the cat-and-mouse games between Nambooze and the CBS radio establishment. It seems Nambooze is being phased out by CBS, after failing to tone down her language as demanded by the Government. Since her arrest and subsequent release, she has been off air.
Of course, this may put them in bad light with her listeners, but according to the moderates, that is one of few options for creating harmony between them and the Government.

It’s a 27-year Scandal – Buganda must secede


It’s a 27-year Scandal

Buganda, Alur, Bugishu, Karamojong, Tooro must defend her women, etc., against political party maddeness with power and the glory that never comes. Women must demand that nrm and its affiliated/opposing political parties committees themselves to offering them a monthly fund equivalent, to a balanced dairy meal and medicare to their children from 1 day up to 15 years of age.

Why should women otherwise vote for these parties?

There are only two methods an agricultural based economy can develop. That is by simultaneously stimulating both the supply and demand side of the sector. The above structure does not work independent of primary arrangements such as:

i. Transport facilitation

ii. Storage facilities (granaries or silos)

ii. Processing capability (drying, grounding or packaging)

iii. Packaging capability

iv. Marketing strategy

v. Subsidies, negative Taxation etc.

Which of the above, has nrm political economy scientist done in its 27 years of existence – none! nrm/nra can’t even produce packed beef from ‘Chinese’ owned meat factory in Lira or high-energy biscuits from Kawempe cassava factory for their ‘army’, which Amin a buffoon, kept doing all along his 8 year tenure!

In fact i – v encourage supply or demand automatically, on condition that

I.                   Medical workers

II.                Teachers

III.             School children

IV.             Prisoners

V.                The army

VI.             Police men/women

are organised to consume the above items i.e. if National (Libyan) Housing Construction Corporation was building organised human settlements for them.   The Colonial government never considers financing University Meals, and School Children (upe) meals carrying mawooru (left over) to primitive village schools as agricultural production strategy.

If naads money (billions stolen) went to buying 7 million litters of milk, orange, mango, pineapple and passion fruit juice, tinned beef and high protein biscuits monthly – more people will be in agriculture and no money will be stolen.

Why? A few Factories will be supplying directly to schools, colleges, universities and barracks and the a few banks will be crediting aro-processors accounts.

It is a 27-year scandal and Baganda support such nrm?!

nrm irrational programmes (naads, pma, peap etc.) virtually all of them have focused their vexing apathy on stimulating the supply side. That is government increasing money supply i.e. liquidity to farmers (access to money) to produce more (supply) albeit without, the needed agro-processing capacity. This money has also gone to acquiring wooden carts for cart pushers in Mukono!

By magic the creation of naads, then sacco’s it was thought, will instantly get people very rich from agricultural production! Now just imagine, that by a miracle about 10 million farmers all produce the same crops. What will be the end result in the present circumstance where there is neither agro- processing capacity nor consumption strategy? Majority people in the colonial state depend on subsistence for food provisions.

Notice, the entire colonial state of Uganda has only one and I emphasise only one centre of high consumption that is Kampala.

Irish potatoes and onions from Kabale are sold in Kampala.

Milk and banana from Mbarara are sold in Kampala

Rice and upland rice from Wakiso is sold in Kampala

Oranges, sweet potatoes and onions from Mbale sold in Kampala

Vegetables and maize sold in Kampala.

Sweet Bananas and Bogoya from Kalangala is sold in Kampala

Gojja from around mabira forest and sesse is sold in Kampala.

Fish is sold in Kampala



Now, if the supply side in agriculture is to be fully effective and real, I mean real literary, certain precondition must be wholly insatiated.

  1. Post harvest mitigation measures i.e. storage capacity of surplus food stocks must be in place.
  2. Farmers must be guaranteed farm subsidies, to mitigate losses
  3. Cooperative unions must unite farmers. Bugishu, Karamoja, Buganda, Bakiga Produce Marketing Boards/ Banyankore kweterana /Bugishu coffee produces must be in place.
  4. Agro-processing industry must be fully functional. Diary aka sameen Corporation
  5. Tax regimes and non-competitive measures must be in place.
  6. Boost demand through internal consumption of agro products. (Uganda Foods and beverages)
  7. Agriculture Research (Serere, Kawanda, Nnamulonge etc.)
  8. Transport facilitation i.e. TransOcean, Uganda Railways or rvr(!) and Uganda Transport cooperative union.

Can you imagine post harvest waste and damage along transport routes? Mangoes season has end with tonnes of loses and the same will happen with oranges.!


Mark you all throughout the 70’s Uganda was transporting pineapples, cabbages and such to Europe using Uganda Airlines!

Which of the above a- h has nrm ever created or supported – none! Not even buying surplus produce like cereals (simsim, millet), beans, peas, maize, etc. which previous governments were doing through foods and beverages and the Produce Marketing Boards.

In a natural world, practice and intention with starting governmental supported entities (world over) is to support supply through internal demand i.e.

i.                    nrm run down Dairy Corporation producing ghee, creameries, milk products

ii.                  Textile Industries, machines sold-off by nrm functionaries

iii.                Food processing i.e. grain millers sold to nrm mafia.

iv.                Kawempe High Energy Biscuit factory for soldiers from cassava

v.                  Bugolobi coffee sold to agoa then to coffee again!!!!!!

vi.                There was oil production from maize, cotton seeds, nsogasoga, cocoa etc

vii.              Meat production with a factory run down by nrm revolutionally cattle keepers.

viii.            Uganda bread factory

Right from the 60’s throughout the 70s the colonial state infra and supra-structures to support both agricultural supply and demand sides of agricultural production were in place.

Amin Africanised but never ever sold off anything!

a.       Cotton produced was sold to ginners later sold to mulco, nyanza and nytil textiles. Cotton production boomed. Today people wear Mivumba sold on the capital city’s main street Kampala!

b.      foods and beverages sold and marketed Uganda’s agricultural produce within and without.

c.        Lint Market board marketed cotton products

d.      Coffee beans were bought by numerous coffee processors with time these were on their way to becoming big time coffee beverages produces. The same applied to cocoa from Bugerere.

buganda must secede to save our baganda economy.

Next article is about Bukedde radio and television.



“Buganda cannot just run away with all the property developed for the good of the whole country”

(John Sebana-Kizito, Uganda Argus, Saturday, 6 August, 1960; page 2).

“And because their leaders lack wisdom, foresight and sense of responsibility, the most well-meaning and innocent Baganda have suffered.  However, we the non-Baganda are beginning to appreciate this and are quickly becoming aware of the difference between Mengo and Buganda”

(Chango Machyo, Uganda Argus, Wednesday, 3 February, 1960; page 3)

“Moreover the separation of Buganda from the rest of the Protectorate might well be objected to by some sections of the public in Buganda and particularly the minorities, and might even lead in the case of the minori­ties to requests for separation from Buganda .”

(AB Cohen to EL Mutesa II, 27th October 1953)

“If the Protectorate were to be divided into separate parts, each of these parts would be much weaker economically and in every other way than the Protectorate as a whole; and not only much weaker, but much less able to hold its own in dealings with the neighbouring territories.”

(AB Cohen to EL Mutesa II, 27th October 1953)

“A strong and united Protectorate rather than weak separate units must therefore be the aim of all our efforts in the interests both present and future of the people of the Protectorate.”

(AB Cohen to EL Mutesa II, 27th October 1953)

“Buganda geographically lies at the centre of the Protectorate and economically and in other ways its affairs are completely bound up with those of the Protectorate as a whole. These economic and general ties, reinforced by Buganda ‘s geographical posi­tion, have been built up over many years and,… would be virtually impossible now to break them down.”

(AB Cohen to EL Mutesa II, 27th October 1953)

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick






The purpose of the draft paper is to provide an exposition of the fundamentals of good governance as incorporated into our Constitution. The objective is to stimulate debate on how Uganda is governed and ought to be governed. The vision is to create a new Uganda in which its citizens feel a sense of belonging, proud to be Ugandans, and desire to live in amity with one another regardless of their ethnic origin, birth, creed, social or economic standing, political opinion or disability while ensuring preservation promotion and maintenance of the heritage of the individual cultural groups which make up the Uganda’s social mosaic.

Our constitution may be divided into segments. The first segment consists of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy taken together with the provisions on Sovereignty of the people, Supremacy of the Constitution and Protection and Promotion of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. These provisions are of universal application and not invented by Uganda but only adopted, as they ought to be. The second segement consists of the enforceability and enforcement mechanisms where the State, State organs, and State agencies, stray from the fundamentals of human rights and freedoms. The most important player under this are the Constitutional Court, and other courts, summed up together under the term “Judiciary.” The nature and mandate of the Judiciary are set out succinctly in article 126 and 128(1)(2)(3) of the Constitution. It is advisable to set out those provisions for a smooth flow of reading and hence, understanding; and also to provide food for thought and reflection by the reader on whether and how these provisions cited throughout this discourse have been, or are, or ought to be, observed, safeguarded and implemented; as well as how the civil society must play a supportive, even coercive, role to ensure observance of those provisions by the State leadership and State apparatus. More and more the voices are becoming louder and louder not only from the rank and file but also from the cream of our society which include Judges and persons of similar or equal standing, decrying prevalence of rampant transgressions of the very foundation of the constitutional order on which a viable state is built. They fear that if such transgressions are not checked early, and now, Uganda might soon be engulfed in a political sunami such as has been heard of in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Somalia and, to a lesser degree, in the post-apartheid South Africa, Nigeria and Madagascar.

Constitutionally, as ordained in article 1, the Civil Society has the duty to participate in analyzing the issues and forces at play in order to ensure compliance with section XXVI which requires to ensure that “All persons placed in positions of leadership and responsibility shall, in their work be answerable to the people” and

All lawful measures… be taken to expose, combat and eradicate corruption and abuse of office or misuse of power by those holding political and other public offices”;

Because section XXIX makes it a duty for every citizen.

  1. to be patriotic and loyal to Uganda and to promote its well-being,

(e) “to foster national unity……….”;

(f) to promote democracy and the rule of law.”

Where the constitutional principles, directives and practical provisions are violated or disregarded, whether deliberately or unintentionally, the rule of law collapses carrying democratic governance with it and ultimately chaos sets in with all its evil ramifications.

Because it is the duty of every citizen to promote democracy and the rule of law; and also because under article 3(4) (a), and (5).

All citizens of Uganda have the right and duty at all times.

to defend the Constitution and… to resist any person or group of persons seeking to overthrow the established constitutional order”

And because

any person or group of persons who… resist the suspension, overthrow, abrogation, or amendment of the Constitution commits no offence”;

preventing such acts calls for regular examination of how far all persons placed in positions of leadership and responsibility have or are carrying out their responsibility and whether or not they ought to be exposed for the deficiencies, if any, in their performance as the Constitution requires.

These duties cast on every citizen are duties which ought not to be left entirely to M.Ps and Councillors who are returned through regular elections, or to Parliament, or to local government councils. No. The electoral process, the Judiciary, the Executive, the Security Agencies and all other organs established by or under the Constitution are, by the cited provisions, part of the organs whose integrity and performance it is the duty of the citizens to examine and rescue from being or getting suspended, overthrown or compromised. Usurpation of the powers of any constitutional organ or agency, by another organ or agency, albeit a Government agency instituted to serve with a degree of independence. in their respective areas of authority by the civil society ought not to be acquiesced in or tolerated by the civil society. Say, resistance ought to come out if the Army were to take over the functions of the Police permanently; or where the Presidency or the Executive were to require the Judiciary to follow Government directives in determining or delivering judgements; or where, as it has recently been voiced, the appointment of judicial officers would no longer be dictated by consideration of the conventional and universally accepted norms of competence, uprightness, and integrity, but based on political party loyalty in order to toy the Government line and to serve political party interests. Such behaviour ought to be looked into by the civil society from time to time and corrected.

It is expected that the proper title of the proposed convention shall be chosen by the conveners.


The Text

The present State of Uganda and its formation

The present State of Uganda was cobbled together by the British colonialists towards the end of the 20th Century and crystallized into its present sociological and territorial form on 1st February, 1926.

The original title of Uganda Protectorate applied to the Buganda Kingdom alone, then an independent state occupying the Central region of today’s Uganda.

The European explorers of the 18th and 19th centuries intrigued by the might of the Nile wanted to find its source and in that connection came to hear of a fabulous Kingdom which it was said gave source to the mighty river. So, the quest turned to finding that Kingdom and on arriving at the Kabaka of Buganda’s capital they established a link both with the famed king, his country and the mighty river, the Nile.

The Buganda King fearful of losing his Kingdom to the more powerful European and Arab colonialist he had already heard of, invited the English (British) to send teachers to teach his subjects the new sciences borne of a superior civilization and also to protect his Kingdom from what he regarded to be rapacious and destructive powers from Europe and the Arab countries. The language of communication in the region with strangers was then Kiswahili, the coastal language of the Eastern Africa region, which the Kabaka also spoke fluently. In Kiswahili the name Buganda was pronounced and written as Uganda.

The British having welcomed the Kabaka’s invitation to come to teach and to protect did exactly that, if a little more. They established a protectorate over Buganda (then Uganda) not by force but by Agreement mutually put in place peacefully. It came to be known as the Uganda Agreement 1900. It covered only Buganda and regulated the relationship between the Buganda Kingdom and the British Administration in Buganda. Later, the British, through Agreements in some areas or by direct acquisition through use of force, extended their rule over a larger territory which in 1926 came to be known as Uganda, too. The Baganda having stuck on their original name which had a cultural significance to them, requested that only the larger territory be called Uganda while they retained the name “Buganda” for their nation. The Baganda are to day dismayed and very angry to see that the present Government has not only erased the name “Buganda” from the official maps and other records but its boundary lines, too, removed from the Constitution. The Government’s intentions are highly suspect and may provide the tinder box for a fire ball the consequences of which may not be yet grasped for now. But the erasure is not confined to Buganda alone. No. It covers all those groups whose emblems are depicted on the entrance to the Parliamentary buildings. For now the names of the cultural groups territories are tucked away in the First Schedule to the Constitution.

That as it may, the new territory which had been joined under the British Administration within the boundaries set in 1926 also benefited from the protectorate arrangement earlier made with Buganda. In consequence, Uganda Protectorate took shape and Buganda became an integral part of Uganda but living in a federal relationship with the Uganda Colonial Administration as regulated by the 1900 Agreement between it and the British. Crown.

The first Uganda Constitution, its abrogation and replacement

While indigenous peoples of Uganda themselves took no part in the process of the creation of Uganda, any more than children take part in the decision for their parents to found a family, but on attaining maturity the children are allowed to participate in matters which concern them and their parents as a family unit, likewise; Ugandans, through their respective communities as recognized by their then colonial masters were consulted from time to time as to their governance. The last consultation was what came to be known as the Lancaster House Conference, the Independence Conference held in London in 1962, which ushered in the Uganda Independence under the 1962 Uganda Constitution.

Wholly good or wholly bad, or good only in parts, the Independence Constitution was the result of a consensus of the Ugandan communities as then recognized and administered. Political parties, too, were consulted, and participated. So, appropriately, instead of making a new Constitution it is the Independence Constitution which ought to have been restored; and amended if and where necessary, through the mechanism set out in it. By failing to restore the Independence Constitution, and amend it if necessary, a bad precedent was set which might be followed in future whenever one regime leaves power.

Since then, there has been allowed to develop a culture of the political leaders abrogating constitutions, or amending them by every incoming regime, contrary to the spirit and principles enshrined in them, through manipulation by those who in the first place swear to uphold, preserve protect and defend those very constitutions; thus institutionalizing regime constitutions whereby every new regime would make a new, or virtually new, constitution to fit its own, not peoples’ agenda.

Restoration of abrogated Constitutions

The principle of restoration of constitutions unlawfully abrogated is recognized in article 3(4) of the 1995 Constitution. It is an old adage that “What is good for the goose is good for the gander.” That this laudable principle was not applied to the 1962 Constitution abrogated through brutal force makes article 3(4) of the 1995 Constitution sound absolutely hollow and it also portrays an image of reasoned hypocrisy.

Article 3(4) of the 1995 Constitution justifies the sentiment that the provision ought to be implemented by recalling the 1962 Constitution, recalling the stakeholders in its making and thereafter seek to amend it, where and if necessary; or else any subsequent regime will feel no restraint to do to the 1995 Constitution what was done to the 1962 Constitution, that is to say abrogate and replace it with yet another one which satisfies his ego. But even as we examine the performance of the 1995 Constitution today, the convention if convened, may find it wise to take a critical look at some aspects of the 1962 Constitution to see what might and ought to be adopted into the 1995 Constitution. If done, the spirit of article 3(4) of the 1995 Constitution would have been given effect to and vindicated.

The Constituent Assembly, or otherwise the composition of the constitution making body, its formation and mandate.

To borrow a word from the world of commerce, at the dawn of Independence in 1962, the owners of Uganda were identified and these are referred to in this discourse as the shareholders. They were fifteen. But for the 1995 Constitution neither the shareholders nor the political parties in existence before the NRM were allowed to participate in their own right.

The shareholders of Uganda Protectorate had been divided into fifteen administrative units. These units were largely based on similarity of cultural and linguistic attributes as well as size of the dominant community within a geographical area, justified on economic and administration cost of service delivery in the unit. The smaller sub-cultures within a given unit were always catered for at the level of county, or sub-county or even of parish, as the situation demanded. This was so, particularly in Buganda. That way, all communities, large or small, had their share in the governance and resources of the country and felt secure in their own setting. For instance, in Buganda the cultural leadership of the Baruli was recognized and accommodated their cultural leader Nangoma; the Banyala cultural leader Namuyonjo was recognized; so, too, the Kooki cultural leader. Here cultural leadership is contradistinguished with political and administrative leadership.

The making of the 1962 Constitution was based on a consensus of the shareholders. Because of that and being mindful of their respective cultures, each community which so desired catered for its culture and way of life and sought to preserve what they perceived to be their most crucial cultural interests in their endeavour to come together in one State, Uganda.

Character of the post 1962 Constitution

The 1962 consensus Constitution was torn apart in 1966. It was replaced by what came to be popularly known as the one man Pigeon Hole Constitution of 1966 which, too, was speedily replaced in a similar manner by the 1967 Constitution. The two Constitutions which came into being after the abrogation of the 1962 Independence Constitution were not consensus Constitutions but Regime Constitutions. Unlike the 1962 Independence Constitution where there was a semblance of a neutral chairman in the form and substance of the British Government which had already taken a position on relinquishing power in Uganda, the subsequent two constitutions were made by, or under, the patronage of a Chairman who had no pretence to neutrality in the matter. In those circumstances the human trait of wishing to impose one’s ideas where circumstances permitted, crept through.

It ought to be remembered that no consultation with the communities which formed and owned Uganda were required to sanction the abrogation of the Independence Constitution. Similarly, no consultations with the Uganda communities were made to introduce the 1966 Pigeon Hole Constitution. Still no consultation with the shareholders was made to overthrow the Pigeon Hole Constitution and replace it with the 1967 Constitution.

Both the 1966 and 1967 Constitutions were made during a State of Emergency, which provided for detention without trial of any body who was perceived to be opposing the Government position or view. A constitution made in such environment could never be a peoples’ constitution. It left the population thirsty of the desire to see their aspirations accommodated.

The 1967 Constitution under the Idi Amin Military Regime

In 1971 there was a military coup. The 1967 Constitution was, in theory, left to stand but it was a mere shell punched by a series of decrees, and later, under the post Idi Amin governments, by ordinances and proclamations, which left it only on a life support but in a state of suspended animation. It had totally lost its effectiveness, shape, and identity by the time the 1995 Constitution came into being.

After the fall of Idi Amin

Idi Amin was overthrown in 1979. An interim caucus called the Uganda National Liberation Front (UNLF) administration took over the country on the fall of Idi Amin. The Uganda National Liberation Front (UNLF) short lived regime further modified what had been left of the 1967 Constitution on the fall of Idi Amin. But the UNLF regime was also military in character in its three successive administrations of Yusuf Lule, Godfrey Binaisa and the Muwanga Military Commission. The Muwanga Military Commission organized elections in 1980 which were widely believed to have been rigged in favour of Milton Obote and his Uganda Peoples Congress party of which Muwanga was a very prominent member. The widely perceived rigging was not tested in the courts of law. The reason for this failure has never been explained. Instead of going to court as a first resort, some people straight away opted for the bush and fought a protracted and vicious war in which so many people lost their lives, limbs and property. There were many splinter groups fighting in the bush; the major one being the National Resistance Army (NRA) with its political wing (NRM) both led by Mr. Yoweri Museveni, now the President of Uganda. The NRA/M took power under then seriously battered 1967 Constitution in which the NRM further punched more holes. Nevertheless, the 1967 Constitution, though hardly recognizable after so much battering, survived, of course, largely for political expediency rather than effect, till the proclamation of the 1995 Constitution.

The Odoki Commission and the 1995 Constitution

The 1995 Constitution was made under the auspices of the NRM political party. The popular perception is that it was the product of NRM as a political party largely pushing its own party agenda according to its own pre-conceived direction. Of course, by then, for lack of a law for that purpose, NRM was not legally a political party, which it later officially became, though still feigning not to be called a party but only a political organization. Nevertheless, NRM had all the trappings of a political party including vying for and holding political power through partisan political elections.

For the making of a new Constitution in 1995, the Government appointed a commission headed by a Judge, now the Chief Justice, His Lordship Benjamin Odoki. The Commission’s composition was not the result of nominations from the member communities of the country, the shareholders. This is not to show skeptism about the Commission’s integrity but to show, as it actually turned out to be, that some of its crucial findings and recommendations could be freely ignored if it suited the appointing authority. Political parties, then under suspension, could not make nominations to the Commission either. So, there was no stakeholders’ consensus agreement on the composition of the Odoki Constitutional Commission. The Commission’s report was, at the end of its business, submitted to the Government which appointed it, and which watered down a good deal of the Commission’s report to impose its own views. The NRM had the majority in the Constituent Assembly (C.A.). Party discipline must have played a role, so it was perceived.

Representatives, not Delegates

That approach did not go down well with a significant portion of the populace. Besides, the Constituent Assembly (C.A.) was made up of representatives elected on the concept of parliamentary constituencies not on principle of delegates drawn from the national communities to reflect the wishes and aspirations of those cultural groups on how they want to be governed. It was a time when political parties, public expression of political opinions, and canvassing for political views, were prohibited. The most important practical distinction between a delegate and representatives in the Constitution making process is that the former’s acts are not final till ratified by the community or body which appointed the delegates, while a representative’s acts become final without prior consultation or agreement of those who chose him or her even where those who elected him or her dislike and even repudiate what he or she had agreed to. The C.A. members, particularly NRM, when faced with questions from their communities were often heard to say that they were not answerable to their communities but to their Party NRM which was the only one allowed to operate, the others totally suppressed by law and in practice. However, it was a convenient answer and a truthful statement. Before the C.A. elections, the people had been hoodwinked into genuinely believing what their leaders were telling them that Uganda was a No-party State, and all those candidates for the C.A. had to be non-partisan. The gullible majority swallowed that sweet pill and went on to elect their representatives subscribing to non-partisan but individual merit. It only became clear after event that the overwhelming majority of the candidates had been sponsored and therefore obliged to follow instructions their sponsor, that is to say, the only political organization then allowed to voice political views, NRM. That as it may, no opportunity was given to the people on whether a new constitution should be made or the Independence Constitution be restored with, or without, amendments, since it was not overthrown as a result of peoples’ demand. That was the amorphous situation in which the 1995 Constitution was made.

The Odoki Commission sensitization process, and the fate of the people’s views

The making of the 1995 Constitution was preceded by a sensitization process. That was a good thing. The sensitized population gave their opinion as to the system of governance the majority preferred. The Odoki Report showed that about 67% across the board, not to mention 97% or so in Buganda, preferred a federal system; while about 33% either did not care or preferred a non-federal arrangement. But the Regime had different ideas. The question of federalism was not even allowed to figure in the draft constitution, which was put to the debate. The majority of the elected Constituent Assembly representatives, not delegates, were NRM party members following party dictates, not community interests, though they always strenuously publicly denied than that NRM was ever a political party. As such, the elected representatives found it easy to ignore the peoples’ views on the peoples preference for federalism as it was not on NRM’s agenda. So, federalism, the peoples’ choice, lost out. Recently, we have come to know the sole source which despite the majority wishes, was ranged against federalism. Though the reason has not been disclosed to date a person whose directives must be followed, has openly voiced his deep seated dislike for federalism. So, the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Ugandans as to how they wished to be governed were sabotaged. An undemocratic system was thus ushered in from inception; and whatever semblance of democratic principles dotted the 1995 Constitution was erased through the omnibus amendment of the Constitution in 2005. Most of the provisions which were passed as agreed for amendment, were neither focused on or debated in parliament. The MP’s naturally picked and concentrated on the most eye-catching only such as removal of term limits on the President’s incumbency. The trick worked. The rest went through uncontested. Thus the Constitution became just one of those ordinary documents which may be just read and torn as one would wish.

Character of the 1962 Constitution

The 1962 Independence Constitution, though not perfect, was very accommodative. It gave a choice of federal, semi-federal and unitary strands of governance to the various communities of Uganda according to their own choices. What it lacked was a specific provision allowing one community the freedom to move from the system of its first choice, federal, semi-federal, or unitary, to another system available, if that community so wished at any later stage. But that was not expressly prohibited either.

Character of the post 1962 Constitutional order

Having regard to the factors at play during the process of the making of the 1995 Constitution and at its subsequent amendment in 2005, the character of the present Constitution is no different from all those previously put in existence after abrogation of the Independence Constitution. The mood those post 1962 Constitutions ushered in up to 1995 is adequately captured in the Preamble to the 1995 Constitution. We feel it imperative to set out in full here to see whether we are now not back to square one.


Commencement: 8 October, 1995

The Preamble

We The People of Uganda:

RECALLING our history which has been characterized by political and constitutional instability;

RECOGNISING our struggles against the forces of tyranny, oppression and exploitation;

COMMITTED to building a better future by establishing a scio-economic and political order through a popular and durable national Constitution based on the principles of unity, peace, equality, democracy, freedom, social justice and progress;

EXERCISING our sovereign and inalienable right to determine the form of governance for our country, and having fully participated in the Constitution-making process;

NOTING that a Constituent Assembly was established to represent us and to debate the Draft Constitution prepared by the Uganda Constitutional commission and to adopt and enact a Constitution for Uganda;

DO HEREBY, in and through this Constituent Assembly solemnly adopt, enact and give to ourselves and our posterity, this Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, this 22nd day of September, in the year 1995.


The spirit and imperatives of a Written Constitution

A constitution has a spirit. That spirit is often captured in what is termed the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. This is found in many written constitutions of the world states. The present Uganda Constitution is no exception. Here we shall point out only a few of them to illustrate the need for a national convention on consensus governance if Uganda is to put a stop and reverse the continuation of the situation which proceeded the making of the 1995 Constitution as portrayed in the Preamble to the 1995 Constitution itself.

In this regard it is pertinent to consider the following extracts from the National Objectives and Directive Principles State Policy set out in the Constitution of Uganda, 1995:

I. Implementation

(a) The following objectives and principles shall guide all organs and agencies of the State, all citizens, organizations and other bodies and persons in applying or interpreting the Constitution or any other law and in taking and implementing any policy decisions for the establishment and promotion of a just, free and democratic society.

The National Convention ought to consider this provision and find out whether or not it has been adequately observed.

II Democratic principles

  1. The State shall be based on democratic principles which empower and encourage the active participation of all citizens at all levels in their own governance.

  2. All the people of Uganda shall have access to leadership positions at all levels, subject to the Constitution.

  3. The State shall be guided by the Principle of decentralization and devolution of governmental functions and powers to the people at appropriate levels where they can best manage and direct their own affairs

III National Unity and Stability

  1. All organs of State and people of Uganda shall work towards the promotion of national unity, peace and stability.

  2. Every effort shall be made to integrate all the peoples of Uganda while at the same time recognizing the existence of their ethnic, religious, ideological, political, and cultural diversity.

  3. Everything shall be done to promote a culture of cooperation, understanding, appreciation, tolerance and respect for each other’s customs, traditions and beliefs.
  4. There shall be established and nurtured institutions and procedures for the resolution of conflicts fairly and peacefully.

  5. The State shall provide a peaceful, secure and stable political environment, which is necessary for economic development.

As we look around us today, the situation is bleak. The provision on national unity and stability is in danger of being totally eclipsed and replaced by disintegration and instability. The prospect of Instability and disunity appear to have been introduced, nurtured, and indeed enthusiastically promoted by the very people who daily condemn in words such behaviour.

XXIV Cultural objectives

Cultural and customary values which are consistent with fundamental rights and freedoms, human dignity, democracy and with the Constitution may be developed and incorporated in all aspects of Ugandan life.

This principle is now being abused. Cultural are values being trampled upon and destroyed. Cultural values include protection of the environment and preservation of species. It is sad that in this age of enlightment only lip service is paid to conservation while the environment is being ruthlessly raped by those who are constitutionally charged to protect it. Protection of the environment is otherwise also separately provided for under section XXVII of the Constitution. It makes no difference that people who are doing it may be unaware or that they do it with good intentions. As it was said in old times, it is still true today that “The way to hell is paved with good intentions”. Yes, the intentions may be good by the result catastrophic all the same. While professing to recognize cultural institutions for public consumption, no effort is being spared to fundamentally undermine them to extinction by employing intimidation, intrigue, bribery in all its variant forms, and arm-twisting, together with deprivation of territorial integrity on which the cultures are built.

XXVI Accountability

  1. All public offices shall be held in trust for the people

  2. All persons placed in positions of leadership and responsibility shall, in their work, be answerable to the people.

  3. All lawful measures shall be taken to expose, combat and eradicate corruption and abuse or misuse of power by those holding political and other public offices.

XXIX Duties of a citizen

The exercise and enjoyment of rights and freedoms is inseparable from the performance of duties and obligations; and, accordingly, it shall be the duty of every citizen—

(a) to be patriotic and loyal to Uganda and to promote its well-being;

The convention ought to examine together the constitutional provisions on accountability and duties of a citizen to see how the leadership have complied with this Directive Principle and, whether the citizens, together or individually, have discharged their obligations under this provision. If not, then they must do so, hence the justification for a national convention. It is a constitutional imperative under section XXIX of the Constitution.

(e) to foster national unity and live in harmony with . others;

(f) to promote democracy and the rule of law.

The need for a national Convention

The need for a national convention on consensual governance arises from Section XXIX (e) and (f) cited above and section XXVI of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy which provides:


  1. All public offices shall be held in trust for the people.

  2. All persons placed in positions of leadership and responsibility shall, in their work be answerable to the people.

  3. All lawful measures shall be taken to expose, combat and eradicate corruption and abuse of power by those holding political and other public offices.

Corruption in public office is not confined to bribery. It extends to all forms of dishonest dealings and acts. No body else has identified corruption in public office more than President Museveni himself. Having regard to all the information publicly available the President cannot be faulted on this. The President has cried out for help from all people. The disease is so pervading that there can be no hope of its cure unless it is attacked massively, quickly, mercilessly and right from top to bottom. Corruption in Uganda is like rain. It comes from the heavens to drop to the ground. Indicators abound as to the source. One must walk the talk as they say. Corruption in high place has assumed such proportions that it now amounts to brazen daylight-aggravated robbery. It has godfathers with the establishment. No good governance can succeed in such a situation. It is the worst source of abuse of human rights and power.

The cause for the rot ought to be identified and where necessary uprooted. New diseases free ground must be found, prepared and new seeds cultured to yield disease resistant plants. The job is heavy diverse and consuming. The present operators have found themselves overwhelmed and need assistance. Only concerted efforts of the concerned citizens can redeem the situation, and only through a national convention.

Pillars of the Constitution

After the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy come the pillars of the Constitution. They are found in the articles of the Constitution. Let us here mention a few of these articles:

Article 1. Sovereignty of the people.

(1) All power belongs to the people who shall exercise their sovereignty in accordance with this Constitution.

(2) Without limiting the effect of clause (1) of this article, all authority in the State emanates from the people of Uganda; and the people shall be governed through their will and consent.

(3) All power and authority of Government and its organs derive from this Constitution, which in turn derives its authority from the people who consent to be governed in accordance with this Constitution.

(4) The people shall express their will and consent on who shall govern them and how they should be governed, through regular, free and fair elections of their representatives or through referenda.”

Article 20. Fundamental and other human rights and freedoms Capitals

(1) Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual are inherent and not granted by the State.

(2) The rights and freedoms of the individual and groups enshrined in this Chapter shall be respected, upheld and promoted by all organs and agencies of Government and by all persons.”

This article sets out a universal truth that no one in authority ought to pride itself or expect to be thanked for granting freedom to the people. No. It is a duty and failure to do so is a criminal act.

Article 21. Equality and freedom from discrimination

(1) All persons are equal before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life and in every other respect and shall enjoy equal protection of the law.

(2) ………………………………………………………………….

(3) For the purpose of this article, “discriminate” means to give different treatment to different persons attributable only or mainly to their respective descriptions by sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, social or economic standing, political opinion, or disability.”

The convention ought to focus on how far these imperatives have been observed by those in authority since the Constitution was put in place, particularly as concerns “ethnic origin, tribe, and political opinion in distribution of political offices and allocation or ranks in the public service, which here includes the security forces and parastatals, among persons of equal qualifications, and how persons holding political opinions different from those of the regime in power have been treated under the law.

Article 23. Protection of personal liberty

(1) No person shall be deprived of personal liberty except…..

    1. in execution of the sentence or order of a court… in respect of a criminal offence of which that person has been convicted,…

    2. or upon reasonable suspicion that that person has committed or is about to commit a criminal offence under the laws of Uganda.

(2) A person arrested, restricted or detained shall be kept in a place authorized by law.

(3) A person arrested or detained.


    1. ………………………………..

shall, if not earlier released, be brought to court as soon as possible but in any case not later than forty eight hours from the time of his or her arrest.

(4) Where a person is restricted or detained…

  1. the next-of-kin of that person shall, at the request of that person, be informed as soon as possible of the restriction or detention;

  2. the next-of-kin, lawyer and personal doctor of that person shall be allowed reasonable access to that person;

(6) …………………………

(7) A person unlawfully arrested, restricted or detained by any other person or authority shall be entitled to compensation from that other person or authority whether it is the stat or an agency of the State or other person or authority.

Where does all this leave the safe houses and the directive of the President to the courts not to grant bail to the persons detained on the yet unproven allegations of committing crimes such as those arrested during and following the September 10th, 2009 prevention of the Kabaka from traveling to Kayunga District? Is such directive in consonance with the two cardinal provisions of the Constitution on administration of justice namely, the independence of the Judiciary set out in article 128 and the Oath judicial officers take enjoining them on how they ought to proceed in the discharge of their duties of dispensing justice? It is important to reproduce here those two constitution imperatives:

Article 128, Independence of the Judiciary

(1) In the exercise of judicial power, the courts shall be independent and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority.

  1. No person or authority shall interfare with the courts or judicial officers in the exercise of their judicial lfunctions.

  2. All organs and agencies of the State shall accord to the courts such assistance as may be required to ensure the effectiveness of the courts.


I,…..swear in the name of the Almighty God…. That I will well and truly exercise the judicial functions entrusted to me and will do right to all manner of people in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as by law established and in accordance with the law and usage of the Republic of Uganda without fear or favour, affection or ill will. “ [So Help me God]

Article 24. Respect for human dignity and protection from inhuman treatment

No person shall be subjected to any form of torture or, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The convention might feel constrained to look at the situation on the ground, particularly with regard to the practices of the numerous, often uncoordinated and at times dubious security agencies established outside the law, notorious for depriving persons of their personal liberty, keeping their victims in unspecified “safe houses, privately tortured there or tortured in public by Kiboko squads, and unruly police operatives as we often see from television footages, all obligingly following “Orders from above” for the reason only that these victims were exercising their constitutional rights to demonstrate peacefully and unarmed, albeit to the dislike of the political masters in power rightly or wrongly fearful of losing ground in a free contest. The pernicious acts of savagery sponsored by the State which many people have claimed through the media, the constitutional Human Rights Commission, numerous local and international NGOs and the national courts, exist and are destructive of the sense of national unity and patriotism to which so much lip service has been given of late by those who know the truth but choose to live in self deception revelling in the empty comfort that no one else knows the truth. But let us move on to the other pillars of the Constitution (1995)

Article 29. Protection of freedom of expression, movement, assembly and association

(1) Every person shall have the right to

  1. freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of the press and other media;

  2. ………………………………………………….

  3. …………………………………………………

  4. freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed……;

  5. freedom of association……..

(2) Every Ugandan shall have the right–

  1. to move freely throughout Uganda and to reside and settle in any part of Uganda;

Does this apply, too, to a traditional leader paying a visit to an area where the Government desires to create and install a new traditional leader?

The provisions of articles 21 and 29 set out above ought to be examined together to see how far they have been observed by the trustees of the people, the Government; and whether Ugandans, with so much docility, should continue to tolerate such a situation, or speak up.

The terms “traditional leader” and “cultural leader” appear to be wrecking havoc in some people’s heads. But in actual fact the two are not one and the same. A traditional leader may have a territory annexed to his leadership; but a cultural leader need not. In some cases a traditional leader may at the same time be a cultural leader in another aspect. A good example is Buganda. Clan leaders are cultural leaders and under the Kabaka with no territory annexed to their offices except as to the official cultural estates serving as a place of abode for the incumbent; but the Kabaka is a traditional leader with Buganda as a territory, annexed to his office. There lies the difference.

37. Right to culture and similar rights

Every person has a right as applicable to belong to, enjoy, practice, profess, maintain and promote any culture, cultural institution, language, tradition, creed or religion in community with others.”

Has this cultural right been permitted uniformly throughout Uganda, including in Ankole, as to traditional or cultural institutions?

38. Civic rights and activities

(1) Every Uganda citizen has the right to participate in the affairs of government, individually or through his or her representatives in accordance with law.

(2) Every Ugandan has a right to participate in peaceful activities to influence the policies of government through civic organisations.”

Where Uganda is now

Among the civil society there is a strong feeling that Uganda is increasingly degenerating into the chaos it was during the regimes of the 1966 and 1967 Constitutions. That the mood portrayed in the Preamble to the 1995 Constitution is reclaiming its previous position fast. That the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy have long been abandoned and no longer influence management of the State. That the leaders no longer regard themselves as trustees for the people but as masters to whose generosity the population owes a living. That the most crucial of the fundamental rights are being more honoured in breach than in observance. That a cloud of fear of sliding into past chaos and conflict hangs over the political terrain. That civil democratic institutions are being seriously undermined. That sovereignty of the people is being snatched away from them by the very people who incessantly sing it. That centralization of power is fast replacing the decentralization and devolution ordained in the Constitution. That the highly hyped authority of the people has turned into a myth. True or false, the situation calls for investigation and, where necessary, correction, in order to prevent the grim prospect of the re-emergence of social strife highlighted in the Preamble to the Constitution, and to rescue the demise of the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in our Constitution, realizing that under section XXIX it is the bounden “duty of every citizen”–

  1. to be patriotic and loyal to Uganda and to promote its well-being;

(d) to foster national unity and live in harmony with others; and

  1. to promote democracy and the rule of law; and in that connection to run to the defence of the Constitution

3. Defence of the Constitution

(1) It is prohibited for any person or group of persons to take or retain control of the Government of Uganda, except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

(2) Any person who, singly or in concert with others, by any violent or other unlawful means, suspends, overthrows, abrogates or amends this Constitution or any part of it or attempts to do any such act, commits the offence of treason and shall be punished according to law.

(3) This Constitution shall not lose its force and effect even where its observance is interrupted by a government established by the force of arms; and in any case, as soon as the people recover their liberty, its observance shall be reestablished and all persons who have taken part in any rebellion or other activity which resulted in the interruption of the observance shall be tried in accordance with this Constitution and other laws consistent with it.

(4) All citizens of Uganda shall have the right and duty at all times-(a) to defend this Constitution and, in particular, to resist any person or group of persons seeking to overthrow the established constitutional order; and

(b) to do all in their power to restore this Constitution after it has been suspended, overthrown, abrogated or amended contrary to its provisions.

(5) Any person or group of persons who, as required by clause (4) of this article, resists the suspension, overthrow, abrogation or amendment of this Constitution commits no offence.

It ought to be appreciated that where the Constitution is amended in anyway contrary to the provisions of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy the person, or group of persons; and this includes the Executive and Parliament, who cause or abet or sanction the unconstitutional methods or procedures of amending the Constitution are guilty of unlawfully taking or retaining control of the Government of Uganda and are liable to be punished pursuant to article 3 of the Constitution.

It is in pursuance of that duty the elite citizens of Uganda of all political persuasions as well as those without any partisan political leanings, together with those in Government today, as well as their support groups and those outside it, must come together in a national convention to draw up the road map for consensual governance in Uganda. The positions be secured by a national consensus Constitution not based on regime ideology, and partisan politics, but dependent on national consensus and parameters acceptable to all, a matter which has dogged Uganda from 1966 to the present day. Such Constitution should create strong, viable working institutions, and save the head of state from being reduced to a jack of all trades, and also the sole dispenser of largesse to all and sundry dipping his finger in every pie; all made possible by the ignorance of the unsentisized masses. To prevent such a situation article 4 of the Constitution was put in place.

Breakdown of institutional governance, the risk to the President and Country and the rescue plan.

To prevent development of the above situation, article 4 of the Constitution was put in place thus:

The State shall promote public awareness of this Constitution by—

  1. translating it into Ugandan languages and disseminating it as widely as possible; and

  2. providing for the teaching of the Constitution in all educational institutions and armed forces training institutions and regularly transmitting and publishing programmes through the media generally.

It is suspected that the State’s failure to honour this vital provision is deliberate because it proved to be problematic.

A population which knows its constitutional rights and obligations is hard to patronize and to oppress with impunity, for they would be aware of their strength granted or recognized by the Constitution; and they would equally know the limitations and boundaries beyond which their rulers could not venture, perhaps except through the device of military coups. As it is, institutional governance has seriously been trampled down upon now and replaced by personal rule, a situation which puts his Excellency’s personal health at risk. It is not hard to imagine that due to absence of properly working institutions the current President, His Excellency, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, has not found it feasible to take a holiday since he assumed the Office of President almost a quarter of a century now. That is bad for the health of both himself and of the Country. It might even adversely affect the President’s political judgement without anyone realizing it, let alone himself. The President needs to be rescued from that predicament. The rescue can only materialize if constitutional safeguards, both for the benefit of the President and for the Country, are put in place and allowed to prevail. For today, we are lucky that Mr. Museveni is a very robust man, but this will not always be so, or to all the persons that may grace the highest office in this land. It is so because to carry oneself so in a high pressure job can only cause dwindling energy and poorer performance more and more. The country then begins to reap diminishing returns. The contrary to this physical and mental trend is against the dictates of nature whatever our wish may be. The situation is worse in countries where few institutions are functioning adequately or at all but management of public affairs is over whelming borne by the Head of State. It must be realized that institutions are not tailored fit the varying propensities of the individuals who may assume public offices; it is those individual who must fit into the institutions put in place not for them but for the public good and in the national interest. which is why it is very timely that concerned citizens must assist in averting a possible political chaos by discussing adherence to institutional management styles and laying proper foundations for the Country’s good governance and save the Country from a possible catastrophe.

Knowledgeable citizens must present papers for discussion at the convention for consensus opinions to be ultimately presented both to the Government and to the population for possible adoption which, if necessary will lead to a consensual Constitution, for a better and safer Uganda.

The player’s

Participation in the projected convention must reflect the true character of the Ugandan Civil Society in political, social, religious faith, race, ethnic, geographical and economic, backgrounds. The Chairperson(s) must be persons of high moral standing, political integrity and experience preferably drawn from outside Uganda. All participants must do so on equal footing.



The 1985 Nairobi Peace Talks Agreement

The idea of a National Convention is not new since Independence. It was first articulated seriously at the Nairobi Peace Talks. However, when the Peace Talks Agreement was scuttled, the projected Convention which alone would marshal the broad ideas of the peoples of Uganda diverse in their ethnicity, faiths, creed and political pursuassion was also scuttled leaving the new Constitution to be monopolized and dictated by the single ideology and aspirations of the regime in power, an event which failed to unite the people in their diversity and to lead to mass prosperity and happiness but instead to condemned the majority to increasing poverty, oppression torture and deprivation at the hands of a clique of the ruling elite. The events of 9/10 in Buganda and spontaneous outbursts and killings which ensured followed by the rampant closures of media houses together with the startling admissions by the ruling elite of the otherwise long documented evidence of the institutionalized vote which has characterized all elections since 1995 events which only those in the corridors of power could successfully mastermind, which, incidentally, an increasing number of the adherents of the ruling party now recognize as a source for formenting chaos in the country, are all signs of the likely doom the country faces. It may be a good idea to bring to those who did not participate or were not around at the Nairobi Peace Talks the came and purpose of the National Convention was conceived.

Towards the end of the protracted war, which lasted for five years (1981 – 1986) peace talks in search for peace in our beloved country, to end all hostilities between the then military government, the National Resistance Movement (NRM) and other combatant forces, Uganda Freedom Movement (UFM), the Federal Democratic Movement (FEDEMU), the Former Uganda National Army (FUNA) and Uganda National Rescue Front (UNRF), were held in NAIROBI Kenya, from 26th August, 1985 to 17th December, 1985, under the Chairmanship of H.E. Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi, President of Kenya. At the end of the talks, all parties agreed to end all hostilities and signed an agreement for the Restoration of peace to the sovereign State of the Republic of Uganda. The importance and justification of that agreement is ably and convincingly, captured in the preamble, where salient and pertinent parts, of the same, we wish to bring out here, so that one can realize that the issues which were being addressed in the talks are exactly the same problems which are haunting us at this very moment. Parts of the aforesaid preamble are as follows:





17th December, 1985



The Military Government and the National Resistance Movement, the Parties to the Agreement.

RECALLING the desire of the people of the Sovereign State of Uganda, at Independence on the 9th of October, 1962 to exercise fully the right to self determination as one Nation within the United Nation Organisation.

AWARE of the endless conflicts resulting from the denial of, or impediments in the way of freedom and peace for the citizens of and people of Uganda by successive Governments, which conflicts have destroyed peace and stability, eroded national institutions and democratic principles and threatened the sovereignty and integral status of our Country so dearly cherished by us and all Ugandans everywhere.

CONSCIOUS of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well being and people based on respect of individual persons and of the need for respect and observance of human rights and fundamental freedom for all person in Uganda without distinction as to race, sex, place of origin, political opinions, colour creed or language.

CONVINCED that any continuation of armed conflict, dictatorial rule, denial of human rights and fundamental freedom prevent development in Uganda as well as positive international co-operation with friendly and brotherly nations and other bodies and militates against the ideals of peace.

BELIEVING that the process of restoration of peace, stability and democratic rule and Government is now irresistible and irreversible as exemplified by the spirit of mutual co-operation, trust and frankness between the parties at the Peace Talks, and in so believing, desiring a formula to terminate the problems that have for so long bedeviled and manacled Uganda such as dictatorial rule, and all practices of denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms, discrimination and massacre associated with such rule.

NOW DO SOLEMNLY PROCLAIM for and in the name of Uganda the urgent necessity:-

  1. Of bringing to a most speedy end of dictatorship in all its forms and manifestations, armed conflict and denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

  2. Of restoring peace, security, law and order throughout the country, through reconstruction of the country’s economy, re-establishment of an effective administration both in Central and Local government initiation and implementation of military reforms designed to ensure balanced, disciplined and national armed forces and security service and;

  3. Of laying the groundwork for the preparation and drafting of a popular constitution which will be supreme Law of Uganda, which constitution shall be promulgated by a popularly elected parliament/National Assembly in due course, and ensuring the speedy return to democratic government through free and fair general elections within the framework of such a constitution.



To further throw more light on what transpired at this Nairobi Peace Talks, here below is Article 15 of that Agreement which read as follows:-



As soon as practical after the signing of this agreement, the Military Council shall convene a National Conference to discuss key National issues to wit, tenure of the interim government, the future national constitution framework, election and the National army, representative at the said National conference shall be drawn from all districts as well as all National Institutions, Political parties, religious groups and military council.

From this Article one can note that although the parties to the talks arrogated to themselves the liberty to handle such very important national issues without first consulting the owners of the state, Ugandans, the beneficiaries from the agreement were going to be those very people, because the out-comes would have been the remedy for the wrongs which forced Ugandans to go to the bush. Mark you these are the same problems, still haunting the people up to now.

Therefore, all what has happened in the country after the collapse of the Nairobi Peace talks, and what is happening now, namely, the continued internecine conflicts in Northern Uganda, resulting in unprecedented loss of life and property in the region, the unilateral constitution making process which brought in the 1995 regime Constitution, the unconsensual governance and the pro NRM electoral Commission and electoral laws, presently contested, the unbalanced tribes representation in the armed forces and other security forces, are some of the problems which were consolidated by those who flouted that agreement. To solve those problems people insist that it can only be done by dialogue through a National Convention. A course of action which had been agreed upon in Article 15 of that agreement referred to in this paper. This is why the demand for a National Convention which would have been held long ago in 1985 still lingers on. Hence, all the above-mentioned misfortune and all the political scuffles taking place in the country must be baled to that group.



Uganda did not come into being organically. It is an artificial State cobbled into being by its one time colonial masters. However, as they agitated for Independence, Ugandans, in spite of their ethnic or cultural diversities, opted to remain one in one State. Geographical locations, language and culture broadly define the make up of the Ugandan social fabric today, as it was before through the colonial era. The outer boundaries of Uganda were defined in 1926. Up to to-day Uganda is largely an amalgam of the various ethnic communities that comprise it. Today, the communities which have since 1926 settled in Uganda are of insignificant demographic importance. By this we refer to such people as have settled in Uganda from Asia, Europe, America and those from elsewhere on the African continent. So, largely in the context of the Constitution, we are talking of the indigenous communities by and large defined by their native locations, traditions and indigenous languages. Principally, these are the peoples whose views must be sought to give expression to Uganda’s political dispensation in constitutional terms. The Constitution must express their cherished views. These are the people who must separately and together put forward the parameters necessary for each of them to live in peace, tranquility, amity and happiness in the State of Uganda. Of course minorities’ views must also be sought with the aim of accommodating them.

It was heard that in 1966 the Buganda Lukiiko (Buganda Parliament) voiced a desire to seccede. This was denied. Those who were there say that they only asked the then President of Uganda, Milton Obote, to remove his Government from Buganda soil because he had breached the Independence Constitution which alone tied all the individual communities of Uganda in one State. Not long ago some political elements in Northern Uganda, particularly in Acholi land, and lately Moyo, voiced the same sentiment. Whether or not the secession sentiment exists and is or is not widely shared, and whether or not it was, or is, confined to the Baganda and Acholis alone, the fact that it has been at all aired must be a source, of great concern and its cause must be timeously investigated by the civil society. Though it is not always true, the old saying that “There is no smoke without fire” is not just a stupid rumbling, borne of primitive ignorance. When smoke is sighted it is prudent to investigate it and quickly, too, establish the reality and cause, and provide a peaceful and permanent solution; or it may get too late to save the situation without serious damage, or at all.

Despite the advent of the NRM, Uganda has not witnessed real peace in every corner of the country. Kony might have been defeated, at least for the time being, but unless the cause has been investigated and totally removed it will be idle to say that the war has been won. First, there was Lakwena, then Uganda Patriotic Alliance (UPA), NALU, ADF, Kony and more; only in a space of just about twenty years. Is Buganda not now volatile again? Can we say with all certainty that there can be no others to follow? No. We can only affirm this if we know the cause, and remove or find a solution to that cause.

Political discontent cannot be wished away, nor can mere condemnation of others by calling them things, tribalists, secessionists, unpatriotic and whatever other humiliating and intimidatory lebels do not offer solutions. They did not do so through all the previous regimes. As we must be well aware yesterday’s thug villain, rebel, murderer, is to-day’s hero and patriot; and vice versa. Political stability is predicated on good governance; and good governance can best come about if the universal principles of good governance and the constitutional guiding principles now largely ignored with impunity and impudence reiterated in our Constitution particularly Article 1, are observed and adhered to. But where the people are denied a say in their governance, stability cannot be assured however strong the coercive State machinery may be. It is more the spirit and less the weaponry that prevails in the long run and it matters less how long it takes. The sudden collapse of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe a decade ago, shortly followed by the fall and disintegration of the Soviet Union should be a lesson to us in this regard except to the naïve or mad political operator or activist.

The old adage says, “Whom the gods will destroy, they first make mad”. May be it is the gods alone who should be blamed. After all a mad person cannot himself know he is mad so he ought not be blamed. It is those same people around him who may know. In politics, unfortunately, there is no constitutionally compulsory periodic medical examination of the mental state of political leaders of any description and level. That being the case, it is the duty of the civil society to put in place measures to safeguard Society from the effect of such a state of affairs by creating strong institutions which endure beyond any incumbent and not designed serve the incumbent’s personal whimsical interests but that of the State and the Civil Society. For elective positions which exercise executive powers there is ultimately no better safeguard than prescribed term limits.

Adherence to the universal principles of good governance as reflected in Article 1 of our Constitution is another bedrock of national stability, which can wed communities together in peace, tranquility and happiness, thus perpetually inducing the citizens and communities of all cultural backgrounds to desire to belong to the unity of the State and be ready to the die for it. Without good governance properly felt by the governed heaps of hours of patriotism lessons will amount to a futile endeavour.

There appears, however, to be some misconceptions among some of the political class that patriotism means, and only means, unquestionable loyalty to a leader, or regime, or a ruling party at any given time, and any deviation from that is treason which ought to be punishable with death. It is high time that people woke up from that dormancy and myopia. “Regime and State” are not synonymous. If indeed they were, all those who participated, or in any way supported, the 1981-86 Bush War ought to be convicted of treason whether now or any time in the future, and be hanged on the gallows for that treason. However, the reality is that a person who resists an evil dictatorship or acts which might result into destabilization of the State is as much, or even more, of a patriot than that who condescends to the perpetuation of bad governance whose consequences may lead to the disintegration of the State. Those who waged the Bush War were rebels against the regime in power then, but they were not rebels against the State of Uganda. That is so because in their view they prosecuted the Bush War only to make Uganda a better place. If so, they were patriots. Patriotism is not a passing phase. It endures at all times through all generations. Our present Constitution recognizes and encourages this plausible disposition. It might be pertinent to set out here some of the provisions of Articles 1 and 3 of our present Constitution.

1. Sovereignty of the people

(1) All power belongs to the people who shall exercise their sovereignty in accordance with this Constitution.

(2) Without limiting the effect of (1) of this article, all authority in the State emanates from the people of Uganda; and the people shall be governed through their will and consent.

(3) all power and authority of Government and its organs derive from this Constitution, which in turn derives its authority from the people who consent to be governed in accordance with this Constitution.

(4) The people shall express their will and consent on who shall govern them and how they should be governed, through regular, free and fair elections of their representatives or through referenda.

2. Supremacy of the Constitution

(1) This Constitution is the supreme law of Uganda and shall have binding force on all authorities and persons throughout Uganda.”

The purpose for setting out here those provisions is to draw the reader’s or listener’s attention to the italicized parts and to inform that those are fundamental principles of universal application to all constitutions world wide. Their presence in the Constitution is a mere reminder of the people’s rights. As indicated earlier, all citizens of Uganda have a constitutional duty and is also a human right not granted by the State but inherent in the people to review how they are governed and set goals for their governance. Good governance, which includes governance by consent of the people concerned, is essential to economic development which can only thrive in a tranquil environment. Those who put themselves up or aspire to lead ought to be mindful of the new and fast developing culture in the world today which no longer permits violation of human rights by national leaders to go unpunished. There are today numerous evidence of this dotted around the world, from the Nuremberg trials of post Nazi Germany, the Pinochet trial of the former Argentinean military dictator, the trial of ex-President Fujimori of Chile for corruption, the trial of Molesevic of the former Yugoslavia for abuse of human rights, the Sadam Hussein trial, though not for the “smoking bomb” the ongoing Rwandese and Charles Taylor genocide trials, the recent suicide of the former South Korea President to avoid prosecution for corruption. Yes, corruption among leaders is a gross violation of human rights of the proportions of genocide. Millions die for want of medical care, sanitation, food, preventive medicine and the like due to thieving leaders or institutional toleration of such persons by corrupt regime which abet such people and the pending arrest warrant for Kony. The measures which are now being meted out to such leaders after they leave office, which include jail terms and confiscation of their loot slashed away in off shore accounts, ought to serve as a wake up call; that abuse of office by leaders may no longer go unpunished; hence also the injunction found in article 3(3) of the Uganda Constitution:

This Constitution shall not loose its force and effect, even where its observance is interrupted by a Government established by the force of arms, and in any case, as soon as the people recover their liberty, its observance shall be reestablished and all persons who have taken part in any rebellion or other activity which resulted in the interruption of the observance shall be tried in accordance with the Constitution and other laws consistent with it.”

The emphasized part of this sentence is loaded and was intended to cover activities which those in power or who may perpetuate themselves in power, or may come to power by acts (other than military), but contrary to the principles and provisions set out in this Constitution may nevertheless be tried. This provision covers amendment of the Constitution through manipulation of the parliamentary and electoral process or through deception or bribery. It is, therefore, necessary that the population does not wait for events to take place, seeking scapegoats or victims, but take the bull by the horns early before greater damage is done. A national convention is undoubtedly the best route to the solution and the time is now, before things get worse.

Convention to be a regular feature

The civil society being constitutionally charged with the duty of defending the Constitution should, through a national convention structure, meet at regular intervals to assess and discuss how far the Constitution is being observed, irrespective of which political party is in power, in the knowledge and realization that Constitutions are not made to serve political party interests or to maintain leaders in power for the leaders sake but rather to maintain, sustain and promote the national interest and the public good. So, in line with the principles of our Constitution which have been outlined in this discourse, the civil society ought to realize their obligations. This provision (article 3(3) of the Constitution) covers amendments of the Constitution if arbitrarily made through manipulation of the parliamentary or electoral process by diverse means or through reliance on the coercive forces to intimidate and silence public opinion in their demand for transparency, fairness and justice.

The National Convention should periodically convene and review Government performance levels on good governance focusing, especially, on the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly those referred to in this discourse, which include articles:

1, on the Sovereignty of the people;

2, on the Supremacy of the Constitution;

3, on the Defence of the Constitution;

4, on Promotion of Public awareness of the Constitution;

20,21, on the nature of fundamental and other human rights and freedoms which include:

(i) 21 equality and freedom from discrimination;

(ii) 22 protection of the right to life;

(iii) 23 protection of personal liberty;

(iv) 24, respect for human dignity and protection from inhuman treatment;

(v) 26, protection from deprivation of property;

(vi) 28, right to fair hearing;

(vii) 29, protection of freedom of conscience, expression, movement, religion, assembly and association including right to demonstrate;

  1. 37, right to culture;

  2. right of access to information.

The above are the most commonly and persistently abused human rights to day. The overwhelming majority of Ugandans are unawere of the protection given to them under the Constitution and so they fear to assert themselves, wrongly thinking that it is unlawful to resist what the statutory authorities, which includes Government functionaries, state agencies, such as the Police, the military and other security agencies, formal and informal illegal.

Where civil society are well informed of their most basic and fundamental constitutional rights they will not only resist dictatorship but will also feel and realize that it is their constitutional duty to participate in their own governance and decision making and abandon the false perception that they are required only to be passive watchers of events which are only the preserve of their leaders, the ruling elite, or political party functionaries. They will realize that governance is a collective activity and pursuit. The Government, too, will realize that ultimately it is in its vital interest and indeed a duty to forge a partnership with the civil society for mutual benefit in the governance of the country. Only then shall democracy prevail and have a meaning away from the lip service it is often paid. To day, either because of large-scale ignorance, fear, or poverty among the civil society, the politicians have usurped peoples’ power and suppressed peoples’ rights making governance a preserve of the politicians alone to the exclusion of the civil society.

It is said that politics is to precious to be left to politicians alone. The press, print or electronic, is being intimidated out of existence or subdued to the level of becoming trivial and valueless. Public gatherings to discuss issues of national or parochial importance not sponsored by either the Government or the ruling Party are wantonly prevented even by petty Party operatives and Police at very low levels vying to please their bosses higher up; and this they do with impunity and great encouragement and great encouragement from “above”; lest such gatherings generate what might sound to be a criticism of the performance of the leadership, turning the whole country into a Police State. There is a perception in some quarters that whatever is not said in praise of the leadership must necessarily be unpatriotic, subversive and stupid. Only the national leadership has the monopoly of knowledge, intelligence and love for the Country. Surely, Ugandans can only sit by and watch that buffoonery prevail at the expense of national decay. The time to wake up and act is now, at least to forestall looming dangers with which we are not unfamiliar in our very short history as a State. The constitutionalism is in danger and with it, us. To save it is to save ourselves, and the future of our nation. We should not shirk this responsibility. It is not a duty for party politics or for the Government and the opposition alone, it ought to be the concern of everybody, the politicians, the non-political class, which include the apolitical, the clergy, the professions of every shade and calling, and the concerned. Uganda belongs to us all. This is a clarion call to action. Our early response is crucial.

Pillars of the Constitution

After the National objectives and Directive principles of State

These are constituted in several articles of the Constitution. Let us here mention the following:

Can this be achieved unless there is in place structures, machinery and political will on the pool of the leaders to establish a genuinely independent electoral commission with non partisan laws in place and with independent work force during the election times?

The purpose of this paper is to provide an exposition of the fundamentals of good governance as incorporated into our Constitution. Our constitution may be divided into segments. The first segment consists of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy taken together with the provisions on Sovereignty of the people, Supremacy of the Constitution and Protection and Promotion of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. These provisions are of universal application and not invented by Uganda but only adopted, as they ought to be. The second segement consists of the enforceability and enforcement mechanisms where the State, State organs, and State agencies, stray from the fundamentals of human rights and freedoms. The most important player under this are the Constitutional and other courts, summed up together under the term “Judiciary.” The nature and mandate of the Judiciary are set out succinctly in article 126 and 128(1)(2)(3) of the Constitution. It is advisable to set out those provisions he for a smooth flow of reading and hence, understanding and also to provide food for thought and reflection by the reader on whether and how these provision cited throughout this discourse have been or are or ought to be observed safeguarded and implemented; as well as how the civil society must play a supportive, even coercive role to ensure observance of those provisions by the State leadership and State apparatus. More and more the voices are becoming louder and louder not only from the rank and file but also from the cream of our society which include Judges and persons of similar or equal standing decrying prevalence of rampant transgression of the very foundation of the constitutional order on which a viable state is built. They fear that if such transgration is not che… early, and now, Uganda might soon be engulfed in a political surnama such as has been heard of in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Ruanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Somalia and to a lesser degree in the post-apartheid South Africa Nigeria and Madagascar. Constitutionally, as ordained in article 1, the Civil Society has the duty to participate in analyzing the issues and forces at play in order to ensure compliance with section XXVI which requires to ensure that “All persons placed in positions of leadership and responsibility shall, in their work be answerable to the people” and

All lawful measures… be taken to expose, combat and eradicate corruption and abuse of office or misuse of power by those holding political and other public offices.“

because section XXIX makes it a duty for every citizen.

  1. to be patriotic and loyal to Uganda and to promote its well-being;

(e) to foster national unity………..

(f) to promote democracy and the rule of law.”

Where the constitutional principles, directives and practical provisions are violated or disregarded, whether deliberately or unintentionally, the rule of law collapses carrying democratic governance with it and ultimately chaos sets in with all its evil ramifications.

Because it is the duty of every citizen to promote democracy and the rule of law; and also because under article 3(4) (a), and (5)

All citizens of Uganda have the right and duty at all times..

to defend the Constitution and… to resist any person or group of persons seeking to overthrow the established constitutional order;” and because

any person or group of persons who… resist the suspension, overthrow abrogation or amendment of the Constitution commits no offence.

Preventing such acts calls for regular examination of how far all persons placed in positions of leadership and responsibility have or are carrying out their responsibility and whether they should be exposed for the deficiencies in their performance as the Constitution requires. These duties cost on every citizen are duties independent of the role of M.Ps through regular elections and their performance in Parliament or local government councils. No. The electoral process, the Judiciary, the Executive, the Security Agencies and all other organs established by or under the Constitution are by the cited provisions part of the organs whose integrity it is the duty of the citizens to examine and rescue from being or getting suspended, overthrown or compromised. Usurpation of the powers of any constitutional organ or agency by another organ or agency albeit a Government agency, such as if the army were to take over the functions of the Police permanently or where the Presidency or the Executive were to require the Judiciary to follow Government directives in determining delivering judgements or, as it has recently been voiced that the appointment of judicial officers in no longer dictated by the conventional and universally accepted norms of competence uprightness and integrity but on political persuasion, such suspect behaviour ought to be looked into by the civil society from time to time and brought to the attention of the whole world as a corrective measure to ensure good governance without which the people may express their will and consent on who shall (not) govern them and how they should (not) be governed” (parenthesis supplied).

Besides the foregoing, the following are some of the areas in the Constitution which ought to receive urgent examination by the Civil Society in a national convention on governance.

1. Sharing of revenues from the natural resources of a given federal or regional area

The revenue yielding resources in the regional and district areas are God given. They belong to those areas primarily for the benefits of the people of those areas. That the Central Government also shares in those revenues is of secondary importance. The districts and regional ownership of the resources which generate those revenues is original while that of the Central government ought to be accepted to be derivative. The Central Government has, with all honesty, only inferior rights to those resources and revenues. If Uganda were a commercial enterprise, the regions and the districts would be the shareholders, the true owners. The Central Government would be the management team, the Directors. Ultimate power lies with the shareholders because where loss occurs the shareholders are the losers. Ownership and control over land and natural resources must be viewed in this context. It ought to be realized that the Central Government has no land except as otherwise as set out in article 239 of the Constitution, which reads in part:

The Uganda Land Commission shall hold and manage any land in Uganda vested or acquired by the Government of Uganda in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

So, where the Government claims any land, it must show its title and how it acquired it otherwise it has no power to allocate or to work on any land which does not belong to it, without the consent of the persons concerned.

Although the Government hardly owns any land, Article 244(1) of the Constitution puts the entire ownership and control of mineral and petroleum in the Government of Uganda. Article 244 2(b) gives Parliament the power to make laws regulating “the sharing of royalties arising from minerals and petroleum exploitation.” It does not provide any definite formula. Thus, the true owner, the region or district, is left at the mercy, or greed, of the stranger, the Central Government, which may, in a token observance of this provision of the Constitution, decide to give to the host region or district 0.00001% of the net revenues realized from the exploited minerals or petroleum. Seeing the secrecy that surround the mineral and petroleum concessions in recent times and the high prevalence of graft in the management of public affairs, the provisions on Mineral and Petroleum resources ought to be revisited with all convenient speed. The people concerned must have a say and a share in the financial and other benefits generated by those resources in their areas. It is a human right for those people.

The Constitution must provide, on a percentage basis, what amount must be reserved for the district and region as a direct income for the benefit of those people; similar consideration for employment, all things being equal, of the natives of those areas ought to be made, too, not only as a measure of social integration between the native communities of given areas and immigrant communities (Bafuruki) in order to prevent or eliminate a feeling of being subjugated, whether real or imaginary, by favoured immigrant communities or ethnicities. The employment policy and practice should not be limited to numbers only but should be reflected at all levels of responsibility in the mining enterprise, the local workers and staff, if and where duly qualified, taking the larger share. Such policy will also reduce nepotism, which is clandestinely but speedily and seriously eating into the Uganda public sector. This policy if constitutionalized will also protect our political leaders from pressures exerted on them by relatives and cronies seeking employment and groovy positions in public and quasi public service establishments.


Besides sharing of resources between the Central and local governments, the people should be entitled to share in the economic resources of their areas through cooperatives. There must be devised a formular for participation in the foreign backed investment schemes for partnerships between the foreign investors, the central government, regional government, district government, private individuals and cooperatives. This arrangement will not only make people develop a saving and investment culture, it will also improve peoples financial and economic power, and also act as a catalyst to mobilization of investment capital internally. This approach will minimize, if not completely eliminate, the chances of conflicts and evils which we hear happening in a number of other developing countries arising from foreign exploitation of the natural wealth of those countries. Parliament must always first approve of all contracts for exploitation of our country’s natural resources to ensure transparency, social justice and accountability, and the regional governments must participate in the negotiation of the concessions. There ought to be ceiling on shareholding by a single individual, too, to ensure equity.

Preventing of corruption by public officials including political leaders

An enabling provision ought to be made in the Constitution for forfeiture of assets corruptly acquired any time it is discovered, in addition to any other punishment; and where one is found to be in ownership of assets far in excess of what his or her known legitimate income justifies, it must be assumed that he or she acquired it corruptly unless he or she can give a satisfactory account of how and when he or she acquired it. Section XXVI (iii) provides:

all lawful measures shall be taken to expose, combat, and eradicate corruption and abuse or misuse of power by those holding political and other public offices”.

The suggested provisions shall give teeth to the above quoted constitutional provision which is now toothless.

Abuse of office and violation of human rights

A provision should be put in place for trying persons who abuse their public office by committing acts of gross violation of human rights set out in the Constitution, as soon as it becomes convenient and practical to try them and on conviction be punished.

Bakuli was named after the British Commissioner in “Uganda”


1/5 While I was at the NCO Academy, I was tought that Bakuli was named after the British Commissioner in “Uganda” from Christmas eve in 1894 to 1899.  The man was called Ernest James Berkeley.  He has a road named after him in Old Kampala and the place between Old Kampala and Namirembe Hill took on the indigenised version of at name: Bakuli.

2/5 Ernest James Berkeley took over as Commissioner after Col. Colville (also with a road named after him in New Kampala).  Col Colville was the man that together with 7 other European officers, 2 maxim guns, a steel boat, 450 Sudanese troops, and anything from 20,000 to 43,000 Baganda rifle and spearmen invaded and ravaged Bunyoro in 1893/94.

3/5 I mention Col Colville because of his contemporary significance in Uganda’s poltics today, particularly in the question on land, “ebyaffe” and the relations between Buganda and Bunyoro.  The weapon that Col Colville ( Berkeley ‘s predecessor) used for the mobilisation of the 2-3 Divisions of the Baganda levies was the promise of land acquisition.  Commissioner Colville gave a verbal undertaking to the Buganda Chiefs that, “all Bunyoro territory south of Kafu River would be incoporated in Buganda and divided equally between Protestant and Catholic chiefs” (Lord Molson’s report, Page 3).  That territory of Bunyoro consisted of 6 counties, totalling 6,000 sq miles, later called “the lost counties”.

4/5 That was the undertaking which was to be upheld by EJL Berkeley (Bakuli); even against the instructions of the Foreign Office.  Commissioner Bakuli eventually signed away that territory of Bunyoro on the 19th November 1896.  Most of the infamous “Akenda” is in that territory which the Attorney General of Buganda, Apollo Makubuya has recently referred to as “Ettaka lya Buganda lya dda! Ettaka lirikko nnanyini lyo” ( Buganda ‘s land is ancient and it is owned by the Baganda).  By “ancient” he means 19th November 1896!

5/5 This is what EJL Berkeley (Bakuli) told the Marquis of Salisbury in dispatch No. 113 of 19th November 1896:

“I proceed to explain the distribution of these territories between two religious parties as made by Col, Colville, would be maintained, namely, the district (marked as South Unyoro) bounded to the north by Ngusi River, to the West by the south-east shore of Lake Albert, to the South by Muzizi River and to the East by Kitumbwi river, would go to the catholics and the territory lying to the East thereof, viz bounded to the North by the Kafu River and to the East by the Nile and to the South by Buganda (as therefore) would go to the Protestants.” These are the areas comprising of Buhekura (Buwekula), Bugangaizi, Ebuuru, Buyaga, Buruli, Bugerere (Bunyara), Bulemezi and Singo.

So, to many a true student of African history, Bakuli is EJL Berkeley, the father of a huge chunk of 9,000 sq miles of land (arithmetically read as 4,227 sq miles)….forget about Dr Gombya’s ‘Barclay’…..and keep the eye on the ball call Lukuli.

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

Buganda TV and Bulemezi radio licences cancelled by government

BugandaRadioEquipMr. Museveni’s NRM government has told Buganda officials who were in the final stages of preparing to open a Buganda TV station to forget it. The order was given by the chairman of Mr. Museveni’s broadcasting council, Godfrey Mutabaazi. According to the Baganda Eddoboozi newspaper, the Kabaka of Buganda first thought of opening a TV station, to develop his kingdom,  a few years ago. Buganda government officials formed a separate company called Diamond Communications Limited to implement the Kabaka’s plans. And on February 24, the NRM government’s broadcasting council  issued a licence to Diamond to open the TV station. Since then, Buganda officials have been working hard, including ordering equipment from overseas, to put everything in  place for the Buganda TV station to open.
In announcing the surprise cancellation of the TV licence, Godfrey Mutabaazi claimed that the licence had to be cancelled because Buganda has taken too long to open the station from the date they got it.  Mutabaazi claimed that it was against the laws and regulations governing broadcast licences to delay as much as Buganda did. The TV licence cancellation comes only one week after the NRM government similarly the licence for a new Buganda radio station. The radio licence had also been obtained by Diamond Communications in 2008 and was not related to the CBS FM radio stations, which the NRM government closed late in 2009.
When the NRM government cancelled the new Buganda radio and TV licences, it completed a total radio and TV information blackout on Kabaka Mutebi and his development programs from the citizens of Buganda.  In October and November 2009, the NRM government ordered all media houses in Uganda to stop reporting might promote the image of Kabaka Mutebi or his programs or Buganda identity. And that was after Buganda’s main station CBS FM Radio and its two channels were illegally closed.  The timing of the cancellations and closures seem to be aimed at bankrupting Kabaka Mutebi’s projects and forcing Buganda to apologize for resisting the NRM government’s plans for the kingdom.
Now, the only public channels in Uganda which the Kabaka can reliably use to guide his subjects in development are two Baganda owned newspapers, Eddoboozi and Ggwanga. However, the two publications are also operating on slippery ground. However, Buganda is far from down and out. Baganda in Europe and the USA have started a variety of media outlets and some of them are dedicated to Buganda national interests. For example, last week word spread like fire around Kampala surburbs that a Baganda radio called Ababaka (  was going to start broadcasting on Short Wave (SW) every Saturday and Sunday from 8:00PM – 10:00PM. Our reporters in Kampala have not yet been able to find people who have a SW radio and were able to tune into Ababaka Radio last weekend. However, the word continues to spread and Short Wave radios are selling very well.  The USA based Baganda radio does not need a licence from the NRM because it is supposed to use satellites to transmit but it is hard to know yet if the NRM  interfered with it at all. Ababaka Radio has been broadcasting for a long time and  is already very popular in the diaspora especially in the USA, UK and Germany.



1/6 Many keep wondering about what it is about the relationship between Bugerere/Buruli and Bunyoro; yet others rather amazingly, even amusingly keep taking for granted their being integral to Buganda.
2/6 The maps below show the reality of those territories in the evening of the 20th century.  Bunyala is what is currently (or for the time being) called Bugerere.  As we know, Buyaga and Bugangaizi are the only counties that have so far been restored to Bunyoro.
3/6 Note that the process that resulted in the allocation of 4227 Square Miles of land (the so -called Akenda) to the government of the country was the very same process that allotted Buganda all those territories in a process of sharing the Bunyoro spoils.  What Buganda has to understand from that historical fact is the reality that, undoing the government’s claim to the 4227 Sq miles of what was in 1900 called “Crown Land” cannot happen without Buganda’s loss of the territory that belongs to Bunyoro, unless Mmengo wants to have it and also eat it.  Those two processes were on the back of each other.
4/6 If you want the “Akenda” (4227 sq miles) back, then surrender everything else that was part of “mpa nkuwe” (scratch my back and I scratch yours) that was the essence of the 1900 agreement, i.e., cannibalisation of Bunyoro.
5/6 Because Mmengo fails to understand that reality, it will never comprehend why Entebbe matches the noises about “Akenda” with blocking the Kabaka from going to Bunyoro territories currently held by Buganda.  Problem: Mmengo wants to “Kusala ekikuubo”, as they say north of Lake Nalubaale.
6/6 To be noted also is that, the real content of the process that had given Buyaga and Bugangaizi to Buganda was the allocation of land in those two counties to Mmengo government and its subjects.  It is intriguing that Mmengo government could be evicted from those counties but its subjects were left there in charge of land that should have been automatically reverted to its Banyoro owners.  In other words, the 1964 referendum was “byoya byanswa.”  There is a stick therein that will in all certainty be used to flog an intransigent Mmengo one of these days.  The losers will be the Buganda Land lord class that somehow were left to hold on to Bunyoro land: their government departed Buyaga and Bugangaizi and they too should have followed it in 1964; and it is not too late.

Funny Pictures
Source: “Report of the Uganda Relationships Commission, 1961 (Munster Commission Report), map between pp 88 and 89.
The shaded part is the territory of Bunyoro constituting the 7 “Lost Counties” of which Bunyala (Bugerere) and Buruli are part.  After the 1964 referendum, only Buyanga and Bugangaizi were restored to Bunyoro.
Funny Pictures
Source: “Pilkington of Uganda”, p.116


Funny Pictures

Source: Richard Reid (2002), “Political Power in Precolonial Buganda” (London: James Currey), p. xi

Why Does The New Vision Root for Mob Justice Against CBS FM?


Why Does The New Vision Root for Mob Justice Against CBS FM?

submitted by william kituuka

In its editorial of February 9th, The New Vision joined the chorus of Government officials in condemning CBS FM for allegedly calling upon Baganda to take action against “people with long noses who threaten to take away their land” and the Government which “has a hidden agenda of killing Baganda”.  The paper also alleged that CBS told Baganda to “chase away people who they think betray Buganda” and “on the day of the riots “called upon Baganda to escort the Kabaka prepared to engage the enemy”. It asserted that  CBS FM’s actions are similar to those of Radio Mille Collines that flamed the genocide in Rwanda in 1994.

In a nutshell the paper has declared its verdict, namely – that CBS FM is guilty of directing the public to commit genocide. This is absurd to say the least.

Doesn’t The New Vision recognise that CBS should not be condemned unheard? Is the paper not able to recognise a need for an independent, impartial inquiry into the causes of the riots and the legality of the government’s actions before, during and after the riots before it can pull the rope on CBS and its owners? Shouldn’t it know better than to participate in mob justice when administrative and judicial mechanisms exist but are sidelined? Does it believe that people should shut up and put up when their rights are being trampled upon? Does it support the rule of the jungle or the gun and not the rule of the law? Has it stopped to ponder the full facts and particularly the evidence on the use of excess force by the State security operatives where innocent people died? Does

What are we to think of a Government-owned paper that prints and propagates such sweeping allegations and makes hasty judgements? Doesn’t the paper realise that genocide is a very serious crime against humanity and that individuals accused of genocide or any other crime must be tried by competent courts and not summarily tried and executed by newspaper editors?

The matters in issue in the CBS saga are very serious and should not be taken lightly. Yet in several respects the CBS saga is only the tip of a huge iceberg of injustices suffered by the people of the Kingdom Buganda. The New Vision ought to know that our community has suffered many years at the hands of tyrants and treacherous politicians from the days of the British colonialists. And, perhaps more than others, it has born the main brunt of the wars aimed to liberate this country. Because of this reality, and in spite of the several adversities it faces, it has a right and duty to defend itself from acts that are illegal and undermine its core values and existence. This extends to the duty to defend itself from false accusations of genocide and to demand for justice.

For the record, the Kingdom of Buganda that I represent, has no agenda whatsoever against people from western or any other part of Uganda. Ours is a nation that comprises and embraces many nationalities with all shapes and sizes of noses – indeed it is a microcosm of Uganda in which all the native peoples of Uganda live in harmony, something that cannot be said about all parts of the country. The makeup of our Cabinet and Lukikko is reflective of this reality. It is paradoxical that, the more Buganda embraces and integrates other native communities, the more it is accused of being discriminative and ethnocentric! Genocide has no place in our constitution or thinking at all. But we fear that it may actually be is in the minds of those that constantly talk about it. Sadly, this thinking may be augmented by The New Vision editorial, whose role here may be more accurately analogous to the notorious Radio Mille Collines – the state-owned media outlet, which paved the way for the genocide of the Tutsi by demonising the Tutsi and convincing the Hutu that the Tutsi had a plan of genocide against them and that the Hutu, who wielded state power and armed militias, should move against them pre-emptively.

About the September riots, Buganda’s case needs to be properly understood. We strongly believe that it was illegal to stop the Kabaka from proceeding on lawful visits to Nakasongola and Kayunga. But for the unnecessary roadblocks in the Kabaka way, the riots would never have occurred and people would never have died the way they did. We also consider that it was illegal and wrong for the Government to remove CBS radio masts and cancel its licence unlawfully. Similarly, we find it wrong for the government to arm twist CBS to accept liability for the riots and to coerce it to withdraw its court case. In any case, we consider that it should not be condemned without a right to a full and fair trial. Thus before The New Vision pontificates on these matters it ought to be cautious and objective. We believe that The New Vision knows of the sub judice rule so, instead of writing inflammatory editorials, it needs to give the courts of law, or the statutory Broadcasting Council, a chance to interrogate the full facts and reach a law finding. Otherwise the paper’s rash statements may only serve to obstruct justice and obviate the public’s attention from the real questions to conjured-up charges of genocide and to individuals who seek justice in the matter.

Needless to say, CBS is entitled to a fair trial including: the right to summon witnesses; the right of cross-examination; the right not to incriminate oneself; the right not to be tried on secret evidence; the right to control one’s own defense the right to exclude evidence that is improperly obtained; irrelevant or inherently inadmissible; the right to exclude judges on the grounds of partiality or conflict of interest; and the right of appeal.

The paper, and others, should know by now that we shall not relent or waiver in the search for the truth and in the defence of our values and heritage. We demand and are entitled for a full public and impartial inquiry in the events leading to the riots and the punishment of those that are found guilty. Similarly CBS FM deserves a fair trial. Mob justice or a kangaroo like court in a newsroom simply will not do.

Apollo N Makubuya


Blocking the Kabaka from visiting Kayunga was Illegal according to constitution


submitted by william kituuka


Protection of freedom of conscience, expression, movement, religion, assembly and association.

(1) Every person shall have the right to—
(a) freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of the press and other media;
(b) freedom of thought, conscience and belief which shall include academic freedom in institutions of learning;
(c) freedom to practise any religion and manifest such practice which shall include the right to belong to and participate in the practices of any religious body or organisation in a manner consistent with this Constitution;
(d) freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully and unarmed and to petition; and
(e) freedom of association which shall include the freedom to form and join associations or unions, including trade unions and political and other civic organisations.

(2) Every Ugandan shall have the right—
(a) to move freely throughout Uganda and to reside and settle in any part of Uganda;
(b) to enter, leave and return to, Uganda; and
(c) to a passport or other travel document.

OK! How do we reconcile these provisions, specifically, Article 29 (2)(a) with the recent blocking of Kabaka Ronald Mutebi’s visit to Kayunga?

And will Kayihuraa’s Police Force ever allow us to exercise the freedom in Article 29(1)(d) without invoking the infamous Police Act or some obscure municipal provision?

William Bogere

UAH forumist




Friday, 05th February

“Kayunga is part of Buganda”- President Museveni

President Yoweri Museveni has clarified that Kayunga is part and parcel of the Central Region of Buganda.

Mr. Museveni made the clarification at a public rally that was held yesterday at Kayunga hospital grounds in Ntenjeru County on the first day of his 2-day popularization and sensitization tour of the district to evaluate the performance of the Government’s Prosperity For All (PFA) programme as implemented by the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) in the campaign to rid households of poverty.

The President told the rally that the indigenous people of Kayunga districts have a constitutional right to practice their culture unhindered.

Addressing himself to local issues that affect the area in particular and the country as a whole, Mr. Museveni discouraged the practice of rural – urban migration in a quest for greener pastures when the real development treasures in the form of fertile land that would be utilized to eradicate household poverty, is left idle in the rural settings.

He criticized the current tendency of selling off property in rural areas, especially among the youth, and flock to Kampala to open up small businesses, engage in bodaboda riding, among others. He attributed this behavior to ignorance of the potential and ability of rural areas in transforming society through modernized agriculture which has for long been recognised as Uganda’s backbone to development and eradication of poverty.

The President, therefore, advised residents of Kayunga district in particular and Uganda in general, to be take steps and be part of the government’s funded Savings and Credit Co-operatives Organisations (SACCOs) in order to access low interest loans that will go a long way in facilitating them to grapple with the much needed resources to fight against household poverty.

However, residents reported to the President that the conditions set for accessing such loans are so high for them to meet. Mr. Gonza Asuman, the Manager of Kangulumira SACCO group noted that some residents front properties that are not theirs as security to access NAADS’ fund, such as plantations, which when discovered leads them to forfeit access to the loans. He informed them that access to the NAADS funds is very much hinged on one’s behavior.

At a stop-over that the President made at Kangulumira Sub-County headquarters, residents complained to him the practice of over pricing the inputs of from NAADS when loans are not interest free. They observed that the practice defeats the overall objective of household poverty eradication. Complaints from children of school going age also confessed to the President that they do not access UPE benefits as provided for by government.

While in the area, President Museveni visited Mr. Geoffrey Kizito’s farm on which he grows pineapples. He also visited high quality farmers’ association wine processing factory that is owned by the area’s farmers. The President promised to help the group with modern machinery for their products to meet the required quality.

In Busaana parish, the President visited Mr. Joseph Kizito’s pineapple and banana plantations. He also toured Mr. Ssonko’s fish farm and Mr. Vincent Ssonko’s pineapple farm in Bumaali who earns Shs. 35 million per year.

E  N  D  S.

Buganda must take Otafiire remarks seriously


All responsible Bangada and indeed Ugandans must consider comments by Trade and Industry Minister Mj. Gen Kahinda Otafiire as official government policy.
Not long ago, the controversial Minister warned Baganda that they have “betrayed Museveni” … who “would kill Mengo if he chose to do so”.  ……. Were Museveni to break Mengo’s legs, the legs would be so badly broken to ever be repaired by any other government. ………..  What other governments would do in that regard is to completely remove the legs”.    Would that not cost NRM votes in Buganda?  “…. Well that is democracy, but will that make the other person win?”
These are powerful statement made by no ordinary man.  Mj. General Kahinda Otafiire is a member of the Military command that was against the restoration of Buganda Kingdom.  A Muganda hater by character, Minister of Trade and Industry and a so called historical of the ruling National Resistance Movement.  He is also a Presidential Advisor on whatever affairs.  It would be therefore scandalous to dismiss his remarks.
In my opinion, the NRM regime is already pounding the legs of Mengo and will soon crack her legs in a manner similar to cracking a dry cockroach unless Baganda unite and start thinking and acting strategically.  The NRM knows that their actions would not cost votes because it is in Buganda that the NRM can rig votes more efficiently.  By declaring that the other party would not win, Otafiire meant that Buganda has no say in her own affairs.
Look at the way the state foiled the Kabaka’s visit to Nakasongola and Kayunga.  The creation of Ssabanyala, SSsabakooki, Sabarulli, Ssabamooli and God knows who will come up next.  The Land bill has passed through parliament, the regional tier bill is on the way and the Kampala bill will take huge chunks of land away from Buganda.  During the recent riots, the army killed 31 dissenting mainly Banganda, imprisoned 700 more and the crackdown is still continuing.  Buganda, the Kabaka and the people of Bugnada are firm “Captives” according to Beti Kamya the MP for Lubaga North.  President Museveni has already closed the Kingdom’s CBS radio station, banned the Buganda Anthem from radio stations and is curtailing the publicity of the image of the Kabaka. 

Last year, district government officials were instructed to stop using the name ‘Buganda’ and instead refer to the Kingdom as the ‘Central Region’.  Based on the above account, unless Otafiire and his NRMO anti-Buganda government are stopped, Buganda as we know it may not be there in the next 3 years.  According to one Buganda hater at Ugandans at Heat, a popular Ugandan internet chat room, “Buganda is Bugending!”.   Of what use is a Buganda that is being chopped away piece by piece and a Kabaka whose legs have been broken he cannot move freely within his kingdom?, asked another.
Considering the above events, the legs of Mengo are already being pounded and will soon be cut off.  What we should be doing is ensure that we can salvage something and maintain at least some movement, continue the physiotherapy and hope that with time we can recover.
To recover  we need a strategic thinking team in Mengo.  The current leadership at mengo is inept and incompetent when it comes to articulating and strategically advancing the interests of Buganda.  They are easily picked upon and wronged by Museveni’s political machine.  Sometimes Mengo Administrators shoot their own foot.
The Katikiiro is demobilizing Buganda nationalism and has a conflict of interest with state house.  He is telling Baganda not to die for their country.  Mengo was tricked into disowning Husain Kyanjo, a warrior of Buganda.  Jolly Lutaya called Baganda sons and daughters of Museveni . Mengo has been out maneuvered, outsmarted and outplayed by Yoweri Museveni’s clever and ruthless political machine.  Museveni has made them look incapable of even running the federal system we cherish. 

“If Mengo cannot respond to Kyanjo’s remarks in a manner that will not be quoted as disowning the brave MP, then how will they manage to convince NRM MP’s not to vote for the regional tier bill or Kampala Bill without making their party disown them?” asked John Bosco Musisi, a prominent Muganda from Australia. 

“We are not sons and daughters of Yoweri Museveni”, responded another Muganda to reckless comments by Jolly Lutaya at the funeral of the late Bishop Ddungu.  “We are offspring’s of Kintu and now sons and daughters of Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II”
“How can a Katikiiro stand up at a party of Baganda workers paid for by the Kabaka of Buganda and tell his audience that ‘Woliggwa wendigwa is a wrong philosophy… how dare he insult Baganda to that extent?”,  asked Moses Mukiibi, a worker in Katwe a surburb of Kampala.  “How can people uttering such reckless statements be negotiating on our behalf? … no wonder they’re being outwitted by the government side”, Moses continued.
The Katikiiro has been wrong on the sh. 2 billion loan from the central government, wrong on negotiations with central government, wrong on his decision to hurl the Kabaka into a meeting with Museveni and now that the government has set tough conditions to re-open CBS, the Katikiiro was wrong to inform the public that the station would open by the end of December!! 

Clearly we have the wrong team, in the wrong place and serving the wrong purpose.  We need strategic thinkers in Mengo.  People who can compete on the political scene without looking political but advancing a political goal.  Surely with all their good intentions,  this job cannot be done by Katikiiro Walusimbi, Peter Mayega and Mulwanyamuli.   It is therefore imperative that Dan Muliika is returned as Katikiiro with a new administration in respect of the wishes of the people.  There isn’t any other person who can unit, rally and strategically position Buganda in this crucial period as we descent into the 2011 general elections.  It would be a disaster of hurricane Andrew proportions to leave the current leadership in control of affairs at Mengo.
We don’t advocate for war or a shouting match with the central government.  We just want to be sure that the people working on our behalf are genuine and competent advocates.
That mengo decided to bring about CBS radio as an issue  at the burial of Bishop Ddungu was disrespect to the deceased who was a strong Federal advocate.  CBSfm radio is not in anyway part of Ebyaffe and should never have been brought up.  Furthermore, the Central Civic Education Committee led by Betty Nambooze has not done any work since May of last year.  This can only happen because the leaders denied it funds.  No wonder the land bill passed.  

Buganda belongs to us, our children and grandchildren.  We must be prepared to die for it, to build it and hand it over to our future generations.  That is why I take Otafiire’s remarks SERIOUSLY and want fundamental changes in Mengo.
Michael Senyonjo
Political Strategist Analyst, London UK

My take on current Buganda issues

You are stereotyping. In saying that the Baganda ethnic group is the fraud and corruption is mostly in Buganda intimating that the Baganda are most frauduklent and corrupt in Uganda. The premise here is that if fraud and corruption is mostly in Buganda, it is obvious because tht is where the seat of government of Uganda is located.  If Uganda is rated amongst the most corrupt countries it is because the government regime is most corrupt and this is not because the regime operates within the boundaries of Buganda but because it is corrupt.
The Uganda President has himself said his government is corrupt and he has vowed that he will fight against it. It is on record that the Uganda Police and the judiciary are most corrupt organs of government in Uganda. The Uganda Land office is another corrupt organs.
The question is how many Baganda are in government positions if Uganda? If the government is corrupt- meaning in its security organs, in the judicial and in the various ministeries how many of those are Baganda? If we take the statistical data of people in Uganda, the demographics of the ethnic groups by percentage, what is the ration of the Baganda to the ratio of the different other ethnic groups for you to make such a blind statement?
If the corrupt Ugandan government operates in Buganda it is obvious Buganda is most corrupt because this is where the corrupt governemt is located. But I know you were referring to the Baganda as being most fraudulent and corrupt.
Please present us with statistical data and compare it with populations demographics so we may all compare and see because it is known that the Baganda are the most populaous in the country. Visit the prisons and obtain statistics of criminal records as well.
b) About CBS, and this is my personal opinion please: If CBS incited Ugandans against the NRM government the right course of action is litigation. Let the Governemt pursue a process of litigation at law and let the courts give their verdict. If found guilty, let CBS pay the price. If acquitted, let government pay costs and damages. Period.
It is my understasnding that the Ugandan incumbent leader, General Yoweri K. Musevni is the so far the only long serving president whose regim has brought relative peace and stability to Uganda post independence.
Dr. Obote’s first term was relative peaceful but for the Mengo crisis of 1966 and the Nakulabaye incident in which many innocent lives were massacred plus the St Mary’s College Kisubi students deaths at the hands of the miliraty in what appeared to be a road accident.
Museveni no doubt has brought some democratic incentives to Ugandans. This includes freedom of speech. But if CBS broadcasters were exercising their freedom of speech during the course of their job, neither you rgudoi nor army generals like Tenyefunza and others can decide the truth about it. It is the legal procedure that can establish this.
Of course 27 people died during the recent riots in Kampala and elsewhere after government prevented the Kabaka from visiting Kayunga which is part of his kingdom by the way. This was an unfortunate event that needed not be. Whether or not it happened because CBS incited people remains to be decided by the courts of law.
The question is were the Baganda as a people happy with government refusing their king to visit his people and territories in Kayunga or not? Was it natural for them to react to that refusal? Did they act responsibly in rioting? Is rioting legal in Uganda? Was the riot led by CBS personnel? etc.
c)  Is it true Ugandans hate the NRM governemnt? if it is, why is that so? Has the NRM delivered well its promises to the peoples of Uganda? Has it delivered well on its Ten Point Programme? Has it brough peace and stability to the people? Has its brought and respected the rule of law in the country? Has it brough democratic institutions and does it respect them? Why then are people hateful of the Incumbent government regime if this be true? If it is true, then there must be something that the government and only government can rectify.
Yoweri Museveni as I know him has the potential and foresight ability to right the wrongs. He is by nature an objective individuals who weighs matters before taking decisions. I hope he is not an impulsive leader judging from I read and have seen about him. Of course there have been incidents of which he is accused by some circles.
Cases in point: the people who died in a container in Teso which I am told was not his directive that they be locked up in a cantainer. But these people died during NRM’s time and so the people take it on him.  Some people even blame him for the LRA of Joseph Kony which I think is absurd and a fanatical assumption.
I have heard Betty Bigombe narrate and report on the Lord Resistance Army atrocities in the North of Uganda. I have een and heard children report on it in the media over the years.  Of course during the long period of LRA insurrection there are bound to have been isolated cases in the military operations where the military officers might have done wrong things. No one denies that. It happens.
Even United States soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan have committed wrongs and are prosecuted by their government. But such cases are not singled out as being government policy or directives and therefore government cannot be held responsible only where or if it does not prosecute those soldiers.
d) You state that when a Muganda asks for one thing, he never stops but asks for more, like Olive Twist you asert. The logical question here is what is it that the Muganda is aksing for? Is he asking for favors or is he asking for what rightfully belongs to him? The truth of the matter dear Rugdoi is that the 9,000 square miles the Muganda is asking for is his native land taken away by a foreign force- the bristich colonial masters. What is wrong when a Muganda asks for what is rightfully his by nature? Is that asking too much?
Museveni and the NRM regime gracefully resstores the Kingdoms in Uganda including that of Buganda. This was because Museveni promised the Baganda that if he won the bush war against Obote he would restore the kingdom is they join him in the people’s protracted war.
That is what I hear. If it be true, then in restoring the kingdoms Museven only was delivering what he promised. The Baganda need to be grateful for that and I hope they are but one can argue that the in return, the Baganda shed their blood during the bush war more than any other tribe in country, for Museveni’s agenda, which was to remove dictatorship from Uganda.
e) For Buganda to seek self-governance or to secede from the rest of Uganda is a wild dream that I do not support. My reasons for this include among others the following:
i- It is backward looking.
ii- It is bound to cause too much bloodshed of innocent lives.
iii- It is unwise at a time when East Africans are working towards an East African Political Federation in which East Africa will be one Federal State with one President, one currecny, one passport and one national army. Where will Buganda be then?
iv- For Buganda to secede from Uganda is impractical because it is unacceptable to the majority of other Uganda and therefore it cannot happne through peaceful means without a divine miracle intervention. On the other hand it cannot happen by the power or the gun. Uganda army is professional and very powerful compared to Buganda who have no army and to resort to a bush war Buganda must solicit other tribes to join her forces against the incumbent regime. This is an impossible undertaking and it is obvious because most ethnic groups in Uganda  will not support Buganda’s desire to secede.
v- I think Buganda has the great potential and ability to develop beyond words and become even a greater economic anf financial engine for Uganda and East Africa if not Africa at large.
Why do I say this? Because the Baganda in the diaspora have connections worldwide. Connections and money with which they can invest for developmental projects- industries and service based firms or corporations; something they have not focussed upon decisively.
Many Baganda have prefered to live in foreign nations and appear to be satisfied with where they are. however, if they turn their massive capital and invest in Buganda, they can outwit their current cries of Museveni tatuwadde bugagga, agaggawazza bantu be. tayagala kabaka waffe etc. We can support our king by developing Buganda without looking at what others are doing. We can make our king proud and independent of the central government peanut handouts or allowances.
One biggestcancer among the Baganda is being envious and jealousy of one another. They wouldrather promote and financially empwer people of other ethnic grouos than empower those of Buganda. We still have not learned this lesson because those we have always empowered have went ahead to become rich and powerful and have in turn empowered more of their own peoples. History should teach us this lesson and we need to change. But our change should be even more generous to all Ugandans because it is our very nature to be generous to others and to stop that would be self-destructive. God gave it to us lavishly. What we need is only to weed out that cancer from our hearts. That is what is destrying Buganda. Not Museveni not Tinyefunza or the Banyankore.
These Baganda living abroad and those at hime can do a great deal in developing their kingdom. if they build industries and other projects the Kabaka will not need to look up to the Central government for anything.
The Baganda need to ask themselves what they have individually done for the development of Buganda rather than spend our precious time talking and beating drums of a civil war. For, while we do that, other ethnic grouo are busy working and developing- and it ironical that they are not only developing their home area but they are developing Buganda by buying Buganda land from the Baganda!
It is time for Ugandan tribes as Ugandans to refocus their attention to the development of their native areas and stop bickering at each other. Together we can build a prosperus Uganda and we have the potential to do so else we may perish in constant civil wars based on tribalism- the evil power and design of the Demon- divide and rule them. Ugandans and Africans must all loathe these divisions.
Bhuka Bijumiro-Jjumiro
Northern Virginia, USA.