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


About ekitibwakyabuganda

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

19 responses »

  1. Mw. Patrick Otto,

    Have ever heard of the legal doctrine of Utis Possidetis Juris? If not please take out a bit of time to research and internalise it, read it along with the Montevideo Convention of 1933 (just those two not to overload you at the moment), and you will quickly understand why you are at it again peddling your perennial anti-Buganda hogwash.


  2. Mr Musisi,

    Educate us about those doctrines in relation to what I have stated below blow by blow. Try also to think about how it was null and void when it came to restoring to Poland in 1945, territories it had lost to the League of Black Eagles in the 1770s. Actually, the Polish leaders at the time successfully dismissed German and Austrian claims as “hogwash”.

    What is strange here is that, you are on the same side of history (and hysteria) as the Western League of Black Eagles were at the time.

    And of course, in the latter case, we are talking about Utis Possidetis Juris within the realm of international law, where, I thought, it exclusively belongs. I stand to be corrected. The issue I was raising below seems to me to be more intra-national than international.

    Finally, I am aware that that convention you proudly cite has 20 signatories, none of whom is Uganda, Britain, or as you may want it to be, a country called Buganda…….now that you have spoken of hogwash.

    Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

  3. Mw. Patrick Otto,

    One would be quick to retort that international humanitarian law, as expounded in the 4 Geneva Conventions, is only applicable to international conflicts. But I hope, you as somebody knowledgeable about the laws of war, will not jump on that bandwagon, because as you know the Geneva conventions are applicable to internal conflicts as well, albeit they were initially to be applicable to conflicts of international nature.

    Likewise, the doctrine of utis possidetis (whether juris, de facto or universalis), originated in Latin America. It is now an accepted doctrine of international law and was as recent as 1991 applied to Slovenia and Croatia when they were seeking indepedence from Yugoslavia. The Buganda and Bunyoro maps you cite go back to 1875, yet the principle of utis possidentis actively started to be applied in the 60s in Africa. In the African context it is even articulated in the OAU Charter in article II(1)(c). I specifically referred you to the Mondeveo Convention for a purpose – Buganda, despite negotiating its entry in Uganda on the eve of independence, fullfils all the criteria articulated in the Convention, just as Sovenia and Croatia were as part of Yugoslavia. Had their territory been chopped by revisionism of the kind you suggest, they would now have not now be independent states.

    Finally, in international customary law, not every instrument has to be signed by all states, or even signed at all to be deemed binding. Soft law (General Assembly Resolutions, Declarations) has been know to constitute customary international law. So, Uganda doesn’t have to sign all instruments to be bound by them, if they form part of international customary law.

    Infact, respect for utis possidetis falls in the category of obligations termed as erga omnes (the universal and undeniable interest in the perpetuation of critical rights) in international law.

    I do not intend to be verbose, thus I hope that is enough at this stage about the thrust of my earlier posting.


  4. Mr Musisi,

    1/8 Now that you have drifted into comparing apples with potatoes, I will want to inquire from you why the Geneva conventions have been ratified by anything up to 194 countries while your wonderful “mumbwa”, the Montevideo convention has only 20 signatories. Once you settle that for yourself in your mind, it will soon occur to you that your “Likewise” is nothing but yet another one of the legion of non sequiturs that one has to learnt to marvel at. While the opening and premise of your argument dwells on the realm of applicability of the conventions you cited earlier (whether domestic or interstate), you then rustle up an inference that dwells on origins of conventions. “Tomorrow is Wednesday, therefore toads are amphibious”. That is your reasoning.

    2/8 Even if yours had been some piece of crisp logic, free of an attempt by yourself to browbeat your way through debate, by dangling around all sorts of legalisms to bamboozle the hoi polloi; we would still remind you that utis possidetis is not end itself but a means to some other end. Your disregard for that end is what makes you think that the principle can be applied to whatever context one chooses. The end of utis possidetis is the avoidance of “no one’s land” during the delineation and demarcation of interstate borders. And oh yes, lets talk Latin: avoidance of terra nullis.

    3/8 That of course takes us back to the sphere of the law governing interstate relations whose application to Kayunga/Buruli/Bunyala would be akin to prescribing ngombemycin for a headache. All that business of yours of “juris, de facto or universalis” is an attempt to be flowery: as a legal principle, utis possidetis is sensu stricto a juridical and not an empirical category. And the latter two are the two poles of a dichotomy, which only Mr Musisi would turn into a trinity!

    4/8 You will want the Montevideo convention to apply to the Uganda case as it did in the case of Yugoslavia but once again you will be doing your usual thing: comparing apples with potatoes. You will certainly avoid letting your reader know that the constituent components of Yugoslavia, those Slovenias and Croatias etc were actually Republics; and Uganda is not made up of Republics. Since you love legalisms, I will refer you to Article 3 of the 1955 Agreement which is instructive, even if the actual agreement was nullified by the subsequent one of 1961 etc.

    5/8 And; was Slovenia constructed by the Austro-Hungarian meddlers at the expense of neighbouring Croatia or Italy? No! Which makes it incomparable with Buganda, which for all intents and purposes has failed to be a Prussia, but is a Serbia, complete with its Kosovos, Vojvodinas and Montenegroes. And when those republics were put together around the Serbo-Croat core, the resultant entity was not named “Serbialand”, but Yugoslavia, the land of the southern Slavs; unlike some. Therefore, you do not easily compare Yugoslavia with your Uganda, which is the Swahilli word for Buganda. Musisi Bosco and Mmengo, just do open that can of worms and see where you will wind up. The Balkans will look like a Sunday picnic; and Kyanjo will be Karadjic, Musisi will Mladic and Bugerere (Bunyala), Kooki, Buhekura, Buruli…mention them will be where they ought to be. Options for Mmengo: choose between being Prussia or Serbia.

    6/8 You have referred to some entity’s territory being chopped. In the same breath, you seem to imply that Buganda’s territory was chopped up. Is that what the facts tell us? To support your argument, you have claimed that the maps that I have furnished date back to 1875. If that were actually true, it would give them more credence! The Map of Poland, Austria, Germany and Russia was in 1945 restored to its status in 1772; remember? Territorial jurisdictions have a way of being like wine! They do not rot. They mature!

    7/8 Your penultimate bit on international law not needing to be ratified by all states assumes that the case of Buganda and Bunyoro is a case of international law; which it is not. Your febrile defence is that since the Geneva Conventions apply in interstate war and also intrastate conflicts. You will then be telling us that any conflict is a war; and that any instance of lack of concordance between two parties is also a war….then you will be being vintage Musisi Bosco. Master of syllogisms.

    8/8 Your final bit on erga omnes (“in relation to all”) is intended to lull us into thinking the principle applies only to international law. Nay! It “applies to all”, including property rights, say of the people of Bugangaizi and Buyaga. Case of your trade mark…. shooting yourself in your foot.

    Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

  5. Bosco Musisi

    The way you have out-reasoned Otto to an extent that he has resorted to red-herring is admirable. I wish people start using empirical knowledge instead of hatred, this forum can be very educative.

    Many people simply rely on their feelings, hatred and personal values and beliefs to reason instead of underpinning their reasoning with well reasoned empirical knowledge.

    Otto is an intelligent man. But because he has a duty to defend Kagutamaana, he has to play about with vague vocabularies and red-herring as tactics of manipulation so that to confuse the readers. This is his duty as an NRM apologist. However, I still commend him for his skills in both reasoning and writing.

    Having said that, Corporal Otto has to find a constructive manner to use his skills, It is cheap people like Tamale Mirundi and Opondo Ofwono that are supposed to be so cheap that they can use their little skills to do silly things like to attack people who want to better their nation through constructive criticism.

    I might be your fun if you keep this standard. For Cpl Otto, much as the intention of your writing is to do damage control and to improve on the image of the Mafia, I will be a little bit hesitant to give you kudos for your dirty job.

  6. Many Baganda do notwant to take the route you are taking. I like you for that.

    The best, and most honest source of information on, Bugerere, and theseven lost counties,Buyaga, Bugangaizi, Buheekura, Rugonjo (Singo),Bulemeezi, Buruuli, Bugerere(Bunyala) are the official British Archivesavaillble to the public in London, free of charge..

    The then British military commanders, Cpt. Henry Coville, FredrickLugard, Maj. Gerald Portal, Ternin, Thruston, Macknon, etc. were all, byorder from London, to record and dispatch their daily military records ofthe invasion of Bunyoro-Kitaraby the Anglo-Ganda army.

    Their records , in writing, are meticulously preserved. Bunyoro-Kitarasent the Principal Private Secretary of the Omukama, Mr. Yolaamu Nsamba to London and he spent six months there recording and photocpying these records.

    Bunyoro-Kitara kingdom, has over five volumes of these records. I personally went to London in June-July, this year, and verified what Yolaamu Nsamba recorded.

    Indeed, Cpt. Henry Coville wrote a book where he reproduced his militaryrecords.

    Cpt Coville clearly states that in 1894 he addressed the Buganda Lukiiko and donated all the Bunyoro lands south of River Kafo to Buganda as a reward for Buganda’s assistance to fight Omukama Kabaleega’s Abarusuura army.

    This act was snot officially communicated to the London Home Office at that time. Because he knew it was illegal.. Hence it was not divulged until 1899 in London and by that time the Home office said it was too late to reverse. Hence the then Governor who concluded the 1900 Anglo-Ganda Agreement had no alternative but to legalise the annexation of those seven lost counties to Buganda. Remember the agreement was signed by British colonialists and Baganda alone. No other Ugandas participated. Hence it was imposed on Ugandans. That is why we say it is a kicupuli agreement. We might as well call for its revision where all Ugandans will participate.

    The Omukama of Bunyoro-Kitara, Kaarukara Kiteehibwa protested so strongly
    that in 1903 he abdicated the throne in protest over the illegal annexation of the lost counties to Buganda. In protest also were two British administration officials by the names Foster and Pulteny.

    The indigenous Banyoro in the lost counties formed THE MUBENDE BANYORO
    COMMITTEE by representatives from the seven lost counties. From 1951 when the leadership of Mubende Banyoro Committee was taken over by my father,the late Joseph Mujoobe Kazairwe, he frequently toured those seven lost counties on his bicycle. I was a young man at that time and I used to accompany him to meet the late Fenekansi, the heir to the Nyamuyonjo who died two years ago.

    I can give you more historical background material if you ask for it.

    Henry Ford Miirima

    Press Secretary of the Omukama of Bunyoro-Kitasra

  7. Dear Mr. Mirima Henry,

    You have not yet answered me fully as to why you dwell on blaming everything that has gone wrong in Uganda on colonialism and the Buganda kingdom. You are no different from African leaders who day in, day out harp about colonialism the way black America’s “leaders” like to talk about slavery. Let us be honest, most of us leaving now were born in an independent Uganda but have refused to do anything to develop our country. Somebody steals global funds or NSSF funds and blame it on colonialism. When Bunyoro kids are dying of HIV and Kwashiorkor, some Bunyoro leaders blame it on Buganda colonialism. In both cases, you’re left with two groups of leaders (cultural and political) wallowing in a safety net of dependency.

    It’s an ugly truth, but it needs to be laid out here, because for too long now Africa’s failings have been hidden behind a veil of excuses and apologies. . . . Museveni and Mirima speaks of British colonialism and how it has kept us poor but I’ll give you Malaysia and Singapore, ruled by the British and occupied by Japan during World War II, and both countries are now better than Uganda. Or Indonesia, exploited by the Dutch for over three hundred years or Vietnam, a French colony later divided between North and South, with famously tragic consequences but they are both better than Uganda or Mirima’s Bunyoro.

    Mirima wants us to believe that lumping together Baluli, banyala, and bakooki into Buganda kingdom has affected their life and level of development but how can he explain the 360 tribes and ethnic groups on 13,700 scattered islands in Indonesia and how they have come to develop themselves than the 53 tribes lumped together by the British in Uganda.

    Bunyoro was among the few traditional communities that earlier rejected colonialism and the capitalist model and therefore had suffered egregiously from exploitation by their colonial masters. This was a colonial game and Buganda beat Bunyoro to it by cooperating with the British to weaken its rivals. It can be argued that Mirima and Bunyoro are also playing the same game: cooperating with Museveni and NRMO to weaken their rivals, the Buganda kingdom.

    Like I said in another message, some of the things that colonialism introduced in Africa have been strengthened by the present governments and those criticising colonialism days in, day out. Here’s an example that affected most of Africa – certainly most of southern Africa. The British needed workers for their mines. African men had no economic requirement to become mine workers – they had their own economic imperatives outside the capitalist system – we grew crops in Buganda, bartered goods with Bunyoro and lived comparatively simple. This was an intolerable situation for the British. They solved the problem by introducing certain taxes and requiring each family make a payment of cash. To do that the men had to work and most people found this uncomfortable but we have all come to accept it. That is why we now have URA in Uganda. Now even Mirima and Bunyoro are using the same capitalist economics to make sure that they get a share on Uganda’s oil which they now call ‘Bunyoro’s oil’.

    Native communities in Canada had the same treatment from the British. On the prairies native farms out produced non-natives easily, so taxation and quotas and discriminatory selling/buying practices were introduced and eliminated the native farming communities very effectively. The strong exploited the weak, and though this is unethical, it was a form it was a form of predatory capitalism which both the British and Baganda adopted at the time and now every one is up for it. Revisionists like Mr. Mirima are now trapped in between seeking the lost glory for their kingdoms and at the same time enjoying predatory capitalism ( by cooperating with Museveni to achieve their aims)

    Look, I’m not trying to defend colonialism. That was just another rich man’s game like slavery. However, don’t make it sound like Bunyoro was some advanced civilization and then the British arrived and destroyed it. Bunyoro was essentially a stone-age society with a relatively sparse population. There wasn’t much happening there. You guys just sort yourselves out by competing with the ‘Buganda development model’ instead of being regular revisionists and modern ‘colonial agents’ (those who cooperate with the powers within to destroy certain communities)

    Byebyo ebyange

    Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba

  8. Abbey Ssemuwemba, Chiefdom of Bwera formerly kingdom of Bwera a tributary break away kingdom from Bunyoro to Buganda in the 19th century, which wants recognition but which Mmengo and in particular Local Government Minister Jolly Lutaaya has refused to do.

    Ahmed Katerega

  9. And I like Otto’s bravely when he comes up with these maps showing Kayunga as part of Bunyoro. However, he does not tell people that Rwanda, Burundi, Eastern Congo and Parts of Kenya were formally part of Bunyoro.

    He cannot even dare to inform Kagame that Kigali is soon going to annex by Bunyoro in its bid to claim its lost territories.

    But as a businessman, he can only write what he thinks would appease his customer Mr Kaguta. And for the purpose not damaging his income, I will not attack him head -on.

  10. I agree with people who say that Abakooki including Semei Kakungulu and the Nakasongola people are all Baganda .Period. We should not allow Mr. Henry Miriima,Bunyoro and Company to divide us because they are pursuing something for purposes best known to themselves. I may sound like I’m burying my head in the sand but it is the best way forward. I can’t see Bunyoro getting the ‘lost counties’ as Mr. Serumaga Kalundi once explained. It is also obvious that the so called Sabaluli and Sabanyala joined the Bunyoro Cultural trust as a bargaining chip to break away from Buganda. It is more difficult for them (baluli and banyala) to break away from Buganda than breaking away from Bunyoro at the time of their own choice. But then again, why would they want
    to break away from Buganda in the first place? We have been part of each other for ages and we have a good understanding of each other’s cultures.
    Bunyoro is one of the kingdoms in Uganda that welcomed every tribe in their territory because they believed other kingdoms were once part of bunyoro-kitala. That’s why there are a lot of other tribes in Bunyoro regions. Similarly Banyoro have migrated to other parts of Uganda and integrated very well with other cultures. The Banyoro in Nakasongola, Bugerere and others in the ‘lost counties’ have become more gandalised more than anything else. There is nothing wrong with this arrangement and any body who loves Uganda would not even attempt to rearrange it in any way by digging up maps that are going to confuse our people.
    Bunyoro based their first claims to the ‘lost counties’ on the evidence of the genealogy of their ruling dynasty. They emphasised that Bunyoro was the oldest and the largest of the Great Lakes region. When bunyoro realised that this strategy of concentrating on ancient history was not working properly,as it meant that parts like Rwanda, Toro,Bwera(bamooli)………… which were once part of Bunyoro will never come back, they then came up with a different strategy called imperial ideology. They tactically used this imperial ideology by accusing both the British and baganda of indirect rule, slavery, and colonialism. They used this strategy by employing petitions based on archives or valuable records, lobbying of nationalist politicians, British Queen’s Counsels, and finally low-level terrorism in an increasingly modern and sophisticated campaign. Bunyoro even
    threatened to sue Buganda, Uganda and Britain for £3b over the issue of lost counties as reported in the Guardian Newspaper here in the UK in 2003. Actually, they have gone ahead and sued the British government as reported in the newspaper this year(2010) because they wanna tap into British money and exposure of this issue.The case is still in court as I write now.
    Bunyoro have come up with a third tactic to pursue their ‘lost’ cause: combination of the ruling dynasty’s genealogical claim for regional pre-eminence, imperial ideology and ‘take advantage of the political environment’. This ‘take advantage of the political environment’ is mainly based on the fact that Buganda and president Museveni are not on the same page at the moment and Museveni needs oil from Bunyoro region to serve his own political agendas. So Bunyoro is willing to be used in playing the part of the cancer that can weaken the strength of Buganda. The question we should all ask ourselves is that: will this combination of tactics finally give Bunyoro what it wants.
    So far,it looks like Museveni has indirectly or temporarily damped them after realsiing that they are costing him votes in Bukiiga or Bufuluki land(after the president’s sectarian letter in their support last year) and Buganda. Museveni publicly announced that while on a rally in Kayunga that Bugerere is part of Buganda after obviously realising that the Banyala are very few in numbers in Kayunga and it will cost him votes.Personally, I feel that we have been successful diverted by both Bunyoro and the central government from the real issue at hand here, which is the quest for federalism in Uganda.
    Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba

  11. Mr Buhanga,

    I answered you elsewhere; and if you look there, you will see me challenging you to substantiate the assertions you made in response to my exchange with Mr Musisi. Since you are now an enthusiast of critical thinking, I suggest that you go back to that response of mine and address the issues that I am raising.

    Your statement in regard to the cut-off date of the poit to which Bunyoro’s claim should be traced back, you are not alone in advancing that idea of Rwanda, Karagwe, Kiziba, or even the rest of the whole of Buganda. In critical reasoning, that is what we call the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum—since you are now an enthusiast of logical fallacies, albeit an indiscriminate one (better than the obscene/profane Buhanga of late 2008, early 2009).

    The idea of (a mistaken) interlocutor is to try to disprove a claim or proposition by positing that all its other logical corollaries will become inevitable consequences and would be absurd. Kabalega was born in Bulega of DRC by a Mulega mother, therefore Omukama of Bunyoro should claim Bunia etc. Mr Mao’s mother was from Bushenyi, Mao was born in Mbarara hospital, therefore Mao will annex Nkore to Acholi. Do not vote for him! Making a claim sound absurd does not disprove it! Even the likes of Professor Nabudere have succumbed to the same faulty reasoning that you are advancing Mr Buhanga; so take heart. It is a pandemic!

    Bunyoro has not claimed even more recent territorial losses such as Buddu, which she lost in a one-on-one confrontation with Buganda. Buruli etc were lost in the process of internal adjustments in the process of the creation of Uganda, which was done by Britain, with Buganda in the role of cheer leader; very very recently. Bunyoro challenged these claims right from the early 1900s. I am sure you know the Mubende Banyoro committee formed in 1922. If Bunyoro’s claim of Buruli is absurd, why shouldn’t Buganda’s claim for the so-called Akenda (meaning 9,000, but which absurdly is 4,227!) be dismissed as absurd? The same 1900 agreement that gave Buganda Bunyoro’s territory is the same one that gave government the “Akenda”. If government should give away Akenda, why shouldn’t Buganda give back to Bunyoro all other items that were transacted in the same process that conferred Akenda to Uganda?

    These issues antedate Mr YK Museveni and they will outlive him, so does Mmengo childishness. Reducing everything you do not agree with and any criticism of Mmengo childishness to support for Mr Museveni is to commit serious logical fallacies. Think of them…your usual red herring etc…let alone your appeal to flattery: sijui, “Mr Musisi I like your reasoning”.

    Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

  12. hahahahaha
    Cpl Otto
    “The idea of (a mistaken) interlocutor is to try to disprove a claim or proposition by positing that all its other logical corollaries will become inevitable consequences and would be absurd. Kabalega was born in Bulega of DRC by a Mulega mother, therefore Omukama of Bunyoro should claim Bunia etc”.

    Can you tell us the time-lines that Bunyoro’s consider when claiming the lost territories?

    If Bunia or Tooro cannot be claimed by Bunyoro , why should they claim Buluuri or Kayunga?

    What policy do they use to measure what should be claimed and what should be left?

    The Jews are claiming Palestine after over more than 1500 years since their ancestors departed Jerusalem.

    Today, Kayunga is populated by Baganda, Badaama, Basoga, Sudanese and other tribes with Banyala as the minority and Banyoro as mere visitors. We are yet to see mass migration if not war.

    If the world is now going into reverse, Bantu people will soon be heading back to the Cameroon /Upper Benue. And the Luo will also soon receive their matching orders back to the Equatorial province.

    I’m yet to see the world going into reverse under the orders of Cpl Otto and Mr Kaguta.

    I would also want you to provide proof that it is a logical fallacy to claim that Rwanda, Karagwe, Kiziba, or even Buganda were formally part of the Great Bunyoro Empire.

    Secondly, you are employing ad hominem (argumentum ad hominem) to attack my person by using words such as “profane Buhanga” instead of presenting a well reasoned argument through the use of data, research, direct observations, legislations etc.

    The reasong as to why you employ ad hominem is because you know very well that it is no longer regarded as a fallacy, in certain instance however, in this regard , it is a fallacy because profane Buhanga has nothing to do with the issue at hand. That is why I feel for the victims of your writings.

    Over to you Mr Otto.

  13. Mw. Patrick Otto,

    You write: ” If Bunyoro’s claim of Buruli is absurd, why shouldn’t Buganda’s claim for the so-called Akenda (meaning 9,000, but which absurdly is 4,227!) be dismissed as absurd?”

    Is any of the akenda Buganda is claiming outside its current territorial boundaries? If so, please tell us where.

    Otherwise you come across as stung by legitimate criticisms by forumists of your inconsequential and untenable anti-Buganda spins.


  14. Mr Musisi,

    1/16 Regarding your opening point on Geneva Conventions, recall that their principle focus is humanitarian treatment of victims of war. They are very specific to the phenomenon of war, whether interstate or domestic. That is the sense in which they apply to the intra-national sphere. So, they can apply to a conflict within Uganda’s boundaries. When you go a step further to assert that, just because Geneva conventions can apply to domestic situations, therefore any other convention can then we have a problem, and a big one at that; of warped deductive logic. That is why I dubbed yours as a case of non sequitur, i.e., concocting non-existent linkages between phenomena. I should have added that you are making yourself a hostage of the fallacy of syllogism. Here you go: Geneva Conventions apply to intrastate situations; the Montevideo Convention is a Convention; therefore the Montevideo Convention applies to domestic situations. Put differently, “God is love; love is blind; therefore god is blind”. That is your style of reasoning Mr Musisi.

    2/16 That was the first problem with your line of reasoning. Just as a lame duck would lay a putrid egg, you then went ahead to mix up the question of spatial applicability of a convention with the source of its initiation. I am here reminded of a similar style of logic of your submission on Thu, 3 December, 2009 11:05:39 when in your attempt to deny that the public can own land, you listed the four types of land tenure and then asked, do you see the public listed there in the supreme law? Just as if modes of land ownership are a category to be conflated with varieties of land owners. Same usual problems of lack of logic even in this instance! Indiscriminate deployment of Latin will not fix those problems for us. We need to look elsewhere.

    3/16 I highlighted the point of your irrelevant invocation of uti possidetis by showing you that that principle is not an end in itself but it is a means to ensuring there are no instances of “no one’s land” or terra nullius. That is a fact, which fact you are electing to deny. My intention was to show you that, uti possidetis is irrelevant to Kayunga and so on. I still hold so. In its original form, uti possidetis applied to interstate relations (not intra-state) between post-conflict countries, particularly in connection with territorial acquisition. That does not apply to Buruli/Buhekura etc, which were cases of internal boundary re-demarcation within one state, albeit a nascent one. In its later derivation, i.e., uti possidetis juris, the principle applies to post-independence polities, which may be what you are referring to when you talk of avoiding revising borders. However, that also belongs to a totally different realm from that of Buruli/Kayunga etc. It is interstate and not intrastate. It is not a “mumbwa” made in Butambala, that can treat every problem on earth: headache, barrenness, bankruptcy, etc etc. May be one can actually say that, uti possidetis is like the Butambala “mumbwa” after all: it is very low on the efficacy scale. The German empire that initially dusted uti possidetis out of Roman law books following the end of the Franco-Prussian war in a bid to hold onto Alsace-Lorraine was not helped much some 70 or so years later when their territorial grab was restored to France. And, and, and: Buruli, Bunyala, Buhekura etc are Bunyoro’s Alsace-Lorraines! Also, do note that if the Prussians had taken seriously Otto’s (Otto Von Bimsarck) objections against holding onto Alsace-Lorraine, they would not have suffered that ignominious climb-down after WWII.

    4/16 Then, when it comes to inviolability of borders, the point you want to emphasize in relation to protection of Buganda, you know how uti possidetis failed to help in the Eritrea/Ethiopia situation. And do not jump in excitement that Eritrea is akin to Buganda, so twekutuleko! Remember, Asmara was no Kampala. By the way, go back and revise the differing contexts of uti possidetis and uti possidetis jusris. Take note of the post-independence and post-conflict contexts. Do not mingle it with your universalis, de facto, and what you called juris (please call it de jure, if only for intellectual hygiene).

    5/16 I stressed the point that Yugoslavia was different from Uganda. Yugoslavia was a federal state made up of republics. In light of my assertion, you ask me, “what was Buganda in 1894, 1962 and 1966?” Are you saying that Buganda was a Republic? Are you saying that Uganda was a federal polity? As for Slovenia’s state formation, my remark was based on a fair grasp of the history of that polity right from 7th Century, as the land of Alpine Slavs or the principality of Carantania. At whose expense was it constituted? What have I overlooked?

    6/16 You are smuggling federo into the political texture of Serbia, for no other reason other than federo fundamentalism. The point I was putting to you is that Serbia has had to pay a price for the territorial grabs which Serbian ultranationalists forgot about when they were spawning off the disintegration of Yugoslavia. The problem here is the difficulty of employing metaphors, analogies, similes and such other figures of speech for one like you who loves to get the weeds wrapped around his axle. Because you perceive such figures of speech literally, you then keep harping on irrelevance, straying, digressing! My point is Kooki, Buruli, West Buhekura, North Bulemezi are for Buganda, like Kosovos, Vojvodinas and Montenegroes have been for Serbia. The Serbian ultranationalists I mentioned touched off the unravelling of Yugoslavia but little did they know that they would wind up with the crumbling of what they thought was a “bundle”. And who are the narrow ultranationalists and gingoists of contemporary Uganda? Mr Musisi, Mr Kyanjo, Mr Nsubuga, Mr Mandazi…..when I listen to those, I am remided of Slobodan Milosevic, Ratko Mladic, Rodovan Karadjic and such others languisihing painfully on the dung heap of history, thanks to their ill-judged hysteria. And by the way, the etymology of Buganda has nothing really much to do with your bundle business. It was all to with brotherhood….so as you have perceptively advised, I have not dared to take your words for it. You have referred to people coming together to form the bundle. First read the history of your “bundle” from 1896.

    7/16 And oh yes: many of you like citing the example of Toro when it comes to Bunyoro’s territorial losses. It is one thing for a territory to secede and form an independent entity and another thing for territory to be excised by an alien force for annexation to an adversarial neighbour. So, Buruli/Bunyala etc and Toro: as usual you are not comparing like for like. NB: Do not be glum about territories east of Buddu that were excised from Nkore and added to Mmengo. What has saved you so far is your friend who you would rather not acknowledge, who restored your “monarchy” but declined to restore the one that rightfully owns everything to the Southwest of Buddu. I am sure you know Kabula, etc.

    8/16 On the question of the partitions of Poland, I stated that the process began in 1772 and you refute that fact and go ahead to confidently assert that the initial partition was in 1775. Sasa: one can only wonder where you derive that date. There are three partitions of Poland known to history: the one of 5th August 1772, followed by that one of January 23rd 1793 and then the one of October 24th 1795 which marked the end of Poland’s existence. One can probably mention a “Fourth Partition”, that towards the end of WWI as that involved the redistribution of diasporas and ethnic communities. So, where did you get 1775 from?

    9/16 When you talk of Poland being “fully restored” after 1918, all you are telling us is that you are interested in overlooking that other partition of 1939 that followed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that killed off the Second Polish Republic. You are using the point of loss of 20% of territory by Poland in 1945 as the basis for dismissing the restoration of Poland. Very clearly, you do that because you have decided to be unaware of the fact that in 1939, the Poland that you celebrate as having been “fully restored” in 1918 was actually erased from the map as we have just seen.

    10/16 What you call loss of territory to Soviet Union was actually a restoration of territory that Russia lost in 1918 when Poland was being “fully restored”. Recall that the restoration took place at a time when Russia was in a meltdown at the height of the Bolshevik Revolution, a time when that country could not send representatives to the talks that culminated in the delimitation of the Curzon line, i.e., the eastern border of Poland. This was done at the expense of the weak Russian empire and as soon Russia recovered, now as the Soviet Union, it sought to correct the excesses of the Curzon process. So, there are quite a few important historical facts missing in your argument, while the few that are available are at best dubious.

    11/16 You suggested to me that I reread that part of history. Far from it! I am now afraid that you may need to consider reading (and I do not say rereading) that history. But even in the scantiness of your historical facts, all you have actually done is to vindicate my view that looted territory is restorable, hence your observation of Poland’s restoration after 150 years. My starting point was that there are close parallels between Bunyoro and Poland. Remember? We have not moved much from that point.

    12/16 So, back to where we started from: all those facts suggest that it is unsafe for some of you to seek solace in the passage of time to hope that territorial grabs can go uncorrected, or if not corrected, to hope that they cannot be used as bargaining chips in seemingly unrelated contests. In other words, historia is on Miirima’s, and oh yes, on Entebbe’s side. To think otherwise is to have hysteria on your side.

    13/16 You note somewhere that I am straying and off topic, when I assert that the legal principles that you invoke are irrelevant to the issues I was raising regarding the relationship between and Entebbe. In fact, I added that, had they been relevant (Montevideo in particular) the question of whom they bind would also have to be addressed. Hence, when you quote for us the Montevideo Convention in relation to Kayunga/Buruli, your are only trying to show us you know that convention but not bothering about its applicability. May be it does not matter to you that, in order for a state to be bound by a treaty, it has to recognise it through ratification. Unless you want to console yourself that, by being “international” Montevideo is necessarily global and therefore universal.

    14/16 And: you are correct to say that, regional conventions can be sources of universal law. Sadly, your correctness ends just there, especially when you then go ahead to imply that a “source” of a phenomenon can suddenly become its embodiment, just as if a spermatozoon can be referred to as a person. But even if Montevideo was all the things you would wish it to be: global, universal, interstate etc, the case of Kayunga and all that is very clearly intra-national, not international. That is why I said earlier that you were comparing apples with potatoes, a metaphor that you seem to have given a literal interpretation. Let us say, with your legalisms, you are not comparing like with like….or you are forcing a square peg into a round hole…let alone the wrong end of the stick you attribute to me.

    15/16 Once again, on the point of erga omnes, the pitfall I was implicitly trying to expose is what you now turn around to attribute to me: digressing into irrelevance. It is so obvious that if a convention is universal then the principle of erga omnes should apply to that convention. So obvious that to have to stress it as you do is a bit strange, urgency to vainly display our knowledge notwithstanding. It is like talking about a chicken, then at the end of your erudite rendition, you end on a “high note” by noting to your ignorant audience that, “having said all that, a chicken is an organism”. How profound! You belabour the point that uti posseditis is universal, and then also find it necessary to emphasize that uti posseditis is erga omnes? Ah! ….just showing off your legal Latin! Reminds me of our civics debates in P.3 on whether Kayikuzi was cleverer than Walumbe and classmate Bivamuntuyo would shoot up with a point of information and start reeling off with all the big words we had learnt in nature study: “kidney, abdomen, osesophogus, medulla oblongata….” Ah! He was so intellectually mechanical….hence his name: Bivamuntuyo!

    16/16 So, Mr Musisi, let us go back to the issues I raised in my original message. The earlier we take those issues seriously the better. Unnecessary latinisation of the debate is nothing but futile intellectual terrorism, akin to the Radio Katweism of Okello George, Moses Nusbuga, Michael Senyonjo & Co.

    Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

  15. hahahahaha
    Cpl Otto
    “The idea of (a mistaken) interlocutor is to try to disprove a claim or proposition by positing that all its other logical corollaries will become inevitable consequences and would be absurd. Kabalega was born in Bulega of DRC by a Mulega mother, therefore Omukama of Bunyoro should claim Bunia etc”.

    Can you tell us the time-lines that Bunyoro’s consider when claiming the lost territories?

    If Bunia or Tooro cannot be claimed by Bunyoro , why should they claim Buluuri or Kayunga?

    What policy do they use to measure what should be claimed and what should be left?

    The Jews are claiming Palestine after over more than 1500 years since their ancestors departed Jerusalem.

    Today, Kayunga is populated by Baganda, Badaama, Basoga, Sudanese and other tribes with Banyala as the minority and Banyoro as mere visitors. We are yet to see mass migration if not war.

    If the world is now going into reverse, Bantu people will soon be heading back to the Cameroon /Upper Benue. And the Luo will also soon receive their matching orders back to the Equatorial province.

    I’m yet to see the world going into reverse under the orders of Cpl Otto and Mr Kaguta.

    I would also want you to provide proof that it is a logical fallacy to claim that Rwanda, Karagwe, Kiziba, or even Buganda were formally part of the Great Bunyoro Empire.

    Secondly, you are employing ad hominem (argumentum ad hominem) to attack my person by using words such as “profane Buhanga” instead of presenting a well reasoned argument through the use of data, research, direct observations, legislations etc.

    The reasong as to why you employ ad hominem is because you know very well that it is no longer regarded as a fallacy, in certain instance however, in this regard , it is a fallacy because profane Buhanga has nothing to do with the issue at hand. That is why I feel for the victims of your writings.

    Over to you Mr Otto.

  16. Mr Buhanga,

    In your message, you ask me to tell you 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: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21084534/The-land-of-the-Nile-springs-being-chiefly-an-account-of-how-we-fought-Kabarega.

    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

  17. It might seem to many that these guys are fighting. I I have to say one thing,though, it is more a civilised and modest fight than what our president put up. Otto if you are Museveni’s kappo as some have said, please teach him to be more point fucussed as you have been, this goes for his words, way of governance and bullets
    Otto , Musisi and the rest Bravo

  18. What !! this is interesting so the Bugerere doesn’t belong to Buganda but Bunyoro very interesting

  19. Now that the truth is known why don’t we have buganda leave Buruli bunyala etc .the buganda officials are educated they want to say have never noticed this

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s