Buganda Conference 2011(Ttabamiruka)

Standard

 
                                                                             Buganda Conference 2011 (Ttabamiruka)
 
                                                  Promotion of Investment in Buganda and Uganda-Opportunities and Challenges.
 
Venue:Hotel Africana, Kampala Uganda
Date: 15-16th Dec. 2011.
Background Notes:
The Kingdom of Buganda is pleased to host the 4th annual Buganda Conference on the theme of “Promoting Investment in Buganda and Uganda; Opportunities and Challenges”.This theme not only builds on last year theme on poverty but aims to move the Kingdom to the next stage namely – to create wealth to benefit the people and the Kingdom. The Conference will address the vast natural wealth across the Kingdom and examine the opportunities for local and international investment. For many years the Kingdom has focused on pressing political and governance issues. Its quest for federalism has been informed, in part, on the desire of the Kingdom to take charge of its resources and to freely determine its priorities for development.

That struggle continues. But alongside this struggle, it is increasingly necessary that we as a people look at the business and investment opportunities all around us to push Buganda’s agenda forward.  It is hoped that this conference will help in mobilizing the people of Buganda to raise resources from within and without and to channel these in ventures like real estate development; education and health facilities as well as the development of cultural and other sites for tourism. In this regard we are pleased to note that prominent financial advisors, management consultants, bankers and successful businessmen and women have agreed to share their expertise and vision on the way forward.
In keeping with previous conference resolutions we shall dedicate the first day to Buganda’s youth who will grapple with the sub-theme of Promotion of investment & entrepreneurship skills among the youths in Buganda.
The conference has four specific objectives namely;
a)      To take stock of the investment opportunities and challenges in the Kingdom of Buganda.
 
b)      To examine ways in which the public in Buganda may be mobilized to work with the Kingdom to exploit investment opportunities in a manner that benefits both the Kingdom and the Public. In this regard to explore the possibility of the creation of a mutual fund and or collective investment schemes with the help of specialized investment advisers and or fund managers.
 
c)      To offer a platform for dialogue and tocreate more awareness on funding opportunities and other support available for small and medium scale enterprises from the Central Government and the private Sector.
 
d)     To discuss and develop a strategic approach to investments in the Kingdom borrowing a leaf from other Kingdoms in Africa and beyond.
 
We thank the Kabaka and Nnabagereka of Buganda for their tremendous support to the Buganda Conference. We also thank the sponsors, with whose solid support, Buganda Conference from strength to strength. When we began in 2008 we had 600 participants. Last year we had 1300! This number is bount to grow this year. We are thus very  grateful for the support of the participants who dedicate time and money to attend the annual meeting.
 
Enjoy the Conference and lets let a hundred flowers bloosm…
 
 
Apollo N Makubuya
Chairman Conference Organising Committee. 

Kabaka to meet ‘Abalangira’ and ‘Bambejja’ on 10th Dec 2011

Standard

Kabaka Mutebi II

Forumists,

The Kabaka of Buganda Ronald Muwenda Mutebi ll is scheduled to meet all members of princes and princesses from Buganda at
Bamunaanika palace in Bulemeezi on December 10th 2011. Those include all princes and princesses under Ssaabalangira and
Ssaababiitos including of Kibulala in Singo , Sanje in Buddu and of
Kooki.

This is the second meeting for Kabaka Mutebi to meet all princes and princesses, in less than 10 years. It is also the first meeting where the Babiito of Sanje and Kooki will be included. Ssaababiito Walugembe Kateregga has organised a preparatopry meeting
for Abalangira Ababiito of Kibulala at Nakivumo Settlement Primary School on November 26th.

Prince Luguma Kateregga of Buakkata calls upon all prionces and princesses under his sub clan, to attend both the Nakivubo meetings at Nakivubo and at Bamunaanika.

Good weekend.

EKISAAKAAT​E January 2012 program unveiled for those interested

Standard

From the Office of:
Juliet K. SsentezaPrivate SecretaryOffice of the NnabagerekaBuganda Kingdom
P.O.Box 58, Kampala
Uganda

On behalf of the Patron/Founder of the Ekisaakaate (Children’s Holiday Camp), HRH Nnabagereka Sylvia Nagginda Luswata, I would like to introduce to you to Ekisaakaate, a two week annual programme, aiming at nurturing young girls boys, aged 6 to 18 with different cultural and social background, into “holistic” and verstail individuals who appreciate both traditional and modern values.

The ‘Ekisaakaate’ programme is commended for supporting character formation and personality development which is not adequately catered for in the mainstream education system as school teachers put more emphasis on academics.

I am happy to inform you that the next Ekisaakaate will run from 2nd to 15th January 2012 at St. Mary’s Secondary School Kitende, Wakiso (off Entebbe Road) and the theme is “Culture is Critical to Development” (Obuwangwa bwa Nkizo mu Nkulaakulana).

Registration of participants has started, on a first come first serve basis, at the Office of the Nnabagereka, Bulange Mengo; Café Ballet, Plot 34 C Kyadondo Road, Nakasero; and St Mary’s Boarding Senior Secondary School, Kitende.

The participation fee is Shs.200,000/=. For any further information please feel free to contact The Office of the Nnabagereka, 0715 561606 or 0715256461.

Kindly send it to your friend (s) in support of the Nnabagereka’s noble cause towards a new holistic and upright generation. Thank you. Juliet K. SsentezaPrivate SecretaryOffice of the Nabagereka

PRESS RELEASE:For all Baganda in consultations with all Ugandans in Diaspora

Standard

PRESS RELEASE
We the Baganda in the diaspora in consultation with other Ugandans convened on 4th November 2011 at 20-30 London Road, Barking. London (United Kingdom) and resolved to demand what the government of Uganda owes Buganda within a period of sixth months from today.

The acrimony between Buganda and the central Government stems from the failure of the NRM government to honour Buganda’s demands. These demands are part of an agreement between Buganda and the NRA/M reached as a prerequisite for Buganda’s involvement in the 1981 Luweero Bush war.

The resolutions are:
1. Buganda and other regions of Uganda be given full federal status as recommended by the Odoki report where 97% in Buganda and 65% in Uganda demanded for federal status.
2. The central government pays the 23billions Uganda shillings debt it owes Buganda in Rent and returns all Buganda properties including land.
3. The government releases with immediate effect all people detained without charge since September 2009.These include all Ugandans detained during the Kayunga and walk to work demonstrations.
4. The NRM government stops fragmenting Buganda region into unnecessary districts with the ultimate aim of weakening Uganda.
5. The government stops the rampant corruption, nepotism and marginalisation of sections of Ugandans.
6. If these demands are not met within the stipulated six months period, we shall announce the next step.

Signed by:

Chairperson
Richard Smitego

Deputy Chairperson
Mzee Yiga Sempogo

Secretary
Charles Mugagga

Ssabasajja Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi was born on 13 April 1955

Standard

Dear Forumists

It is important that the following facts are brought to your attention:

1. Ssabasajja Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi was born on 13 April 1955. He was conceived in the south of France where his father (Ssekabaka Edward Mutesa II) was on vacation with Ms Sarah Kisosonkole (Mutebi’s mother) in the summer of 1954. This was during Mutesa’s first exile and photographs of this holiday are available.
2. During the whole of 1954, Daudi Ochieng was employed at Namulonge in Uganda. Ochieng first went abroad in 1955 after Mutebi was already born. This puts Daudi Ochieng more than 4000 miles away from Ms Sarah Kisosonkole at the time Mutebi was conceived.

Kabaka Mutebi II


3. In Mutesa’s book, The Desecration of My Kingdom (1967), he himself describes being with Ms Sarah Kisosonkole in France in 1954. He further states how he later went with her, while pregnant, to shop in Harrods in London for the unborn Mutebi. Ms Sarah Kisosonkole was then despatched to Kampala so that she did not give birth to Mutebi outside Buganda.
4. A one time Speaker of the Buganda Lukiiko (Sheikh Ali Kulumba) affirmed that Ochieng could not possibly have been Mutebi’s father because he got into royal circles at Mengo long after Mutebi was born. Ochieng had been introduced to these circles by the late Grace Ibingira and Sam Odaka.
5. In January 1999, when this issue came to the forefront, Dr Martin Aliker, a brother to the late Daudi Baldwin Ochieng, expressed his family’s sympathy with the Kabaka of Buganda Ronald Mutebi II. He further stated that the Kabaka had been unfairly embarrassed and humiliated by “some disgruntled elements of the extended Buganda royal family.”
6. How many of us really resemble our fathers? Nobody ever said that all children must resemble their fathers. Daudi Chwa and Mutebi do not resemble their fathers, Mwanga and Mutesa II respectively. However, Chwa and Mutebi actually resemble their mothers.

Daudi Ochieng

Some totally misinformed people on this issue keep “activating” this topic for reasons best known to themselves. They even asked me if I had a photograph of Daudi Ochieng. One further asked, “Why does Ssabasajja Mutebi resemble him to the toe?” At that point, I immediately realised this person had never seen a photograph of Daudi Ochieng.

On this score, I have attached two photographs (one of Kabaka Mutebi and the other of Daudi Ochieng). Please have a look and decide for yourselves if indeed there is any resemblance whatsoever between the two as some people had claimed. I will not be surprised in the least if some misguided people argued against the above facts. If they do, that will truly show how vindictive they are towards the Baganda in particular.

Deo Kasansula

WHY DENY MENGO SUGAR PRODUCTION LICENSE, WHILE GRANTING MADHVANI GROUP?

Standard

Oct. 24, 2011.

In April, 2007, the world watched thousands of Ugandans come together in a mass demonstration which defeated a proposal by Government of Uganda (GOU) to sell Mabira Forest to Madhvani Group. The rain forest which is today one of the last water catchments in the area, and ecologically of unmatched importance, was to be cut down in order to make way for sugarcane growing.

Having failed in Mabira Forest, GOU moved to northern Uganda, and as documented by Hon Okello Okello’s PRESS STATEMENT of (date), the GOU is today forcefully grabbing land in Amuru District, under the protection of Uganda People Defense Force, to make the land available to Madhvani Group. This is being done in disregard for a standing court injunction which was issued by a High Court in Gulu against such activities on disputed land.

The attempted sale of Mabira Forest and the current forceful acquisition of land in Amuru District suggest a determination by GOU to increase production of sugar in the country at all cost, even if it meant risking damages to our environment.

Under ordinary circumstances, the doubling/tripling of sugar prices in Uganda and her neighboring regions in the last two/three years, would have lent justification to the extraordinary undertakings by GOU in the attempted sale of Mabira Forest and the current forceful land grabbing cases in Amuru District, to make the case for urgent need to increase sugar production in the country.

Unfortunately for GOU, the denial of sugar production License to Mengo, which has been feared and highly debated in Ugandan media recently, and at a time when GOU is doing everything possible to convince Ugandans to see and accept as urgent, the need for Madhvani to engage in sugar production on forcefully acquired land, in Amuru District, poses a serious contradiction to the effort and resolve by GOU which seemingly, aim to increase production of sugar in Uganda at all cost.

It removes all elements of good faith from the intentions of GOU in her sugar production endeavors and calls into question the motives behind the preferential licensing and an investigation into why Madhvani alone is worthy of the sugar production license, in this effort by GOU to increase sugar production in the country. It is especially mind boggling if one considers the fact that, unlike the Madhvani Group whose earlier attempt to acquire land in Mabira Forest resulted in a mass demonstration which took the lives of three Ugandans, and who has to relying on forcefully acquiring land in Amuru District to be able to grow sugar today, Mengo has ample supply of rich agricultural land, ready for cultivation at any time. Moreover, sugar production on Mengo’s land would eliminate all the risk of damages to our limping environment, which the destruction of Mabira Forest would have posed, while also mitigating

on the internal conflicts being created in the country by the forceful land grabbing by the Madhvani Group in Amuru District.

All will agree that Mengo is today, as it was at the beginning, the seat of Buganda Kingdom. Though constitutionally denied all political powers in Uganda, Mengo continues to rally together, the people of Buganda in culture and tradition, under the leadership of King (Kabaka) Ronald Mutebi II.

Composed and supported by the people of Buganda, who are Ugandans, any constructive social-economic development undertaken by Mengo, eventually supports the people of Buganda/Uganda. Such developments translate into social, political and economic developments nationally, as it enlarges the tax base which benefits all in the nation. Most importantly, sugar production License for Mengo is a superb idea in initiating, supporting and developing the spirit of local investment and entrapernuralism in Uganda and Africa at large, without which the current economic state will only continue to change for the worst. It is the opportunity to develop a head start in business/entrapernuralism that the GOU denied the indigenous people of Uganda, when they failed to grant Mengo the License to grow sugar in Uganda.

The idea of a sugar production license for Mengo is something, any people-friendly government would have treated as a matter of priority, simply because supporting Mengo in this regard, is supporting a lot of Ugandans and the license should have been granted as a national development policy/economic affirmative action program.

The favored Madhvani Group on the other hand, is a company that is currently engaged in, amongst other things, sugar production in Jinja, eastern Uganda.

Originally, the company was started by a family of Asian ancestry, who were part of the crew brought to E. Africa, by the British colonials, for the purpose of construction of the railroads.

As part of a plan to deny the East Africans the opportunity to develop a business head start/entrapernural spirit, the British colonials favored the Asians. Colonial Banks availed the Asians business loans and helped them set-up shops/merchandising in E. Africa, with the Africans mainly providing cheap labor and consumer market for foreign goods, mainly those manufactured in Europe.

In their quest for resources, Colonial Britain brought in the Asians to impose economically on the E. Africans, market dominant minority outsiders, who were not expected to reinvest locally, the returns on their investment capitals. Many were given British passports/citizenship to help them establish safe banking heavens in Britain; an act which helped channel the monies realized by the Asians in E. Africa, not to Asia, but to Britain/Europe. This has been the foundation on which the current financial infrastructure which is yearly channeling out of Africa, hundreds of billions of Dollars in finances and resources, was built.

Contrary to what the former colonial powers and the neocolonialists teach and want Africans to believe, at colonialism, the primary intention of the British was not to develop Africa, but to build in-roads and avenues of exploitations, of which Madhvani and the railroads which they helped build, were a part.

In accordance with that spirit, some of the current sugar producers in Uganda, who are predominantly of Asian ancestry, have been known to export and re-import on paper, the locally produced sugar, without the sugar ever leaving the country. This book-fixing maneuver, give them room to charge the consumers/Ugandans prices for imported sugar. The sad part is that this fraud is believed to have occurred in the country with knowledge of National Resistance Movement (NRM) GOU.

To the fair minded at this juncture, the idea that 1) Mabira Forest for sugar production was targeting the timber from the forest which was worth US$ 500,000,000.00, an amount Madhvani Group would not be able to realize, out of maximum production, at the current rate of sugar production in Uganda, out of the targeted forest land in 100 years, 2) The GOU/Madhvani land grabbing for sugar production in Amuru District, is targeting the oil fields in Amuru District, has begun to take shape.

Effectively, by denying Mengo/Indigenous Ugandans the license for sugar production, the GOU is today, as it was at colonialism, economically maintaining the unspoken practice/policy of imposing market dominant minority outsiders, on the indigenous population, strictly for the purpose of economic exploitations.

It is very important to mention here that, because of these unspoken practice/policies of our economies being controlled by minority outsiders that African economies failed to transform from third world economies to developed/developing economies after independence. This transformation was possible in Asia, in countries like China, S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore etc, because these countries did not have any market dominant minority outsiders. That meant most of the monies that was realized out the sweat and the resources of a nation, remained in the country, were reinvested and developed the country.

Naturally, some may want to blame the wars and the instabilities in E. Africa, especially in the cases of Uganda, Congo, Sudan Rwanda etc, as the reasons for their failure to make that transformation. It is a case/a position that many agree with, since the social, political and economic development of a nation depend on the peace and stability of the nation in question. However, it would be a grave mistake to fail to point out the fact that most of the wars and instabilities in post independence-E. Africa and the rest of the continent, as it was during colonialism, occurred for the purpose of economic imposition of market dominant minority outsiders in an area, by the neocolonialists to begin with.

The argument that wars and instabilities were the primary reasons for failure of Africa’s economic transformation to developed/developing economies/nations, is not helped by the fact that politically stable and peaceful countries in post independence Africa, like Kenya and Tanzania, in E. Africa, also failed to make that transformation, primarily because their economies were being controlled by foreigners.

Corruption and marginalization, which are the other factors blamed for lack of economic development in Africa after independence, are all part of the neocolonial mechanism of exploitation.

For that matter, if the marginalized indigenous people of Mengo /Buganda and Amuru etc, are to have a chance to develop their economies locally, which would then be expected to translate into national development, business licensing and the control of land and natural resources that come with land, must as a national policy, give priority to the indigenous people/Africans. This can best be done if the process of licensing and the control of land and the natural resources were localized and kept away from the control of the corrupt centralized system of governance, the aliens favoring leaderships and the neocolonialists. This is only possible in a shared arrangement between localities and the central government, in a Federal System of Government.

Anything less will forever confine Uganda/Africa, to a third world economy/economies.

In the reality of our dwindling resources, the ever increasing population in Uganda/Africa and the fast approaching desert, which translate into diminishing capacity for the continent to support her people, we (the current generation) are doing a total disservice to the young and the future generations of Africa, by letting foreigners to come in, destroy and to take everything of value, to go and develop their own countries/continents.

Finally, I would like to mention here that, whatever has been said here, has been done only in good faith. This is an African reality.

OTIM OKULLO.

Emails: ocpoagko@gmail.com

The Legendally Kingdom of Buganda according to Kawalysa Ssewanyana

Standard

Excerpts from

  “The Legendally Kingdom”

Nicholas Kawalysa Ssewanyana

Introduction to Buganda

In East Africa, the Baganda are among the Bantu tribe who include others like the Bagishu, Baluya, Samya, Batooro, Nyankore, Basoga, Bakiga, Bakonjo, Bamba, and Nyarwanda. The Nilotics are also found in the region.

The people of the Bantu origin are said to have trekked from Central Africa in Katanga region in Democratic Republic of Congo, former Zaire 1000 AD. Some traveled as far as East African coast to a place called Shungwaya. From around 1100 they traveled inland East Africa. These people include the fore mentioned tribes. The Baganda however like the Banyoro crossed Rive Nile unlike the Basoga. They settled in the present counties of Kyaggwe, Kyadondo, Busiro, Mawookota, Bulemezi, Singo and Busunju.

The Baganda, Basoga and Banyoiro traveled together inland but as they continued to separate and traveled in different groups, their original language assumed the difference they have to-date. Their customs and traditions do not differ much that is why the Baganda and Banyoro share the spirits of Nabuzaana and Lubanga.

The Empire of Bunyoro Kitara

The states of Bunyoro, Tooro, Busoga, Ankole, Buganda, Burundi, Rwanda and some parts of Lango and Bukoba of Tanzania were at first under the empire of Bunyoro Kitala.  The empire of Bunyoro Kitala existed from 1220-1500. The headquarters of this kingdom was a a place called Bigo Bya Mugenyi in Masaka.

When the Bachwezi kingdom collapsed, the Luo royal family known as the Babiito started ruling the following parts of Bunyoro, Busoga, Bugabula, Bugwere. The Bagabe started ruling Nkore and Bukoba in Tanzania. The kings of Buganda became autonomous from the Bachwezi of Bunyoro Kitala.

The the Baganda settled in the already mentioned places after their trek from the Indian Ocean in 1200, they divided themselves into six clans i.e.

1) The Civeat Cat (Ffumbe); 2) the otter clan (Engonge); 3) the Scary ant (Olugave); 4) Red buck (Njaza); 5) Emmamba (Lung fish); 6) Bird (Enyonyi).

Each had its own clan leader, however, since they had the same origin, each clan co-operated with each other. Walusimbi of the (Civeat) cat clan was the chairman of all the clan leaders. The Baganda had their distinctive religion, a complete set of beliefs and practices where they believed in one God who had spirits and mediums. Through holy spirits they would communicate with God to know what was expected of them and what they needed from God. The specially selected people by divine were and still the custodians of such tasks. On identification such people are trained in the practice of the Ganda religion.

Income Generating Activities of Buganda

Economically the Ganda were agriculturists they grew matooke )bananas) a plant which they moved along with right from Katanga region. The banana plant did well in Buganda because the soils were fertile. From the matooke )banana) plant called “mbidde” they brewed “foot wine”. They grew a variety of food and greens like potatoes, cassava, yams and ejjobyo, ensugga, nnakati, entula, empindi,k ebijanjalo (beans) empande (cow-peas) enderema, and buyindiyindi respectively.

The Bantu left Katanga region when they had mastered iron work. They would melt iron and make hoes, pangas, spears etc. They brought and exchanged such items in the societies they passed through and to their neighbors where they finally settled.

During the reign of Kabaka (king) Jjunju 1764-1779, Ssonko of the Otter clan invented Bark cloth making, every young boy child was taught bark cloth making. The bark cloth industry flourished as the Baganda gave up skin dressing to bark cloth dressing. The bark cloth became a very important asset in the region as it was used for dressing, wrapping dead bodies, beddings (sheets and blankets) bride price and other cultural uses like the gifts in marriage introduction ceremonies. It was a lucrative source of income because the Baganda highly valued dressing, for instance it was an abomination for a Muganda woman to expose here breasts or body beyond the knees.

The men’s activities were basically house construction, black smithing, bark cloth making, hunting and barter trading-exchanging hoes, axes and pangas with salt which the neighboring Banyoro got from Katwe in Tooro. Invasion – raid expeditions to neighboring states for women, servants and domestic animals, namely cattle and goats,  was a chief Muganda man’ duty (role).

Originally the Baganda had a few cows they always carried on raaids on neighboring states like Bunyoro, Nkore and the Ziba of Bukoba in Tanzania which then increased their number.

A Muganda woman’s basic role was cultivating and house keeping.

The Beginning of Kinship in Buganda

The first leaders of Buganda were the clan chiefs as already observed. However around 1314 a charismatic name namely Kato Kintu with his forces from Masaba mountain (Elgon) entered Buganda, Kato Kintu captured and usurped the clan chiefs power and became Buganda’s first Kabaka (king). This Kato Kintu should not be confused with Kintu the first Muganda man, husband to Nambi Nnantuttululu who is mentioned in the creation story of Buganda, (the equivalent of Adam and Eve in the Biblical version). King Kato Kintu never abolished the clan leadership, he just truncated their political power and left them with only the traditional role. He firmly consolidated and retained political power.

The Baganda however were so loyal to their clan leaders that they did everything required of them by clan leaders without question, solely because one to be a Muganda he had to belong to a certain clan.

The clan was a chain which connected people to the king and others. In case a clan leader cursed or disowned someone, he ceased to be a Muganda. He had to explain his parentage to his clan chief and Katikiiro (Prime Minister), failure to do so meant that one became an alien; he had to relocate to neighboring tribes. This then explains the important of the clan. King Kato Kintu created his own clans (18) eighteen in number which were added to the (6) six original clans. During the clan meetings, Kato Kinto’s deliberations won the day since he had the biggest number of clan chiefs. The fact that Kato Kintu realized the importance of clans and retained them, shows that he was an astute focused leader.

Although he retained them, he made himself the chief of all clan chiefs.

The Kabaka (king) who succeeded him retained/maintained this position.

Each clan had a specific role to render to the king. For instance the role of the Buffalo clan was to should lift the king Members of the mushroom clan were the king’s dancers and musicians. Those of the Edible rat were in change of sanitation in the king’s palace.

When the Kabaka (king) Kato Kintu passed away as was buried at Nnono in Busujju county. His son Kimera was the son of Prince Kimera, and his mother was Wanyana of the grass hopper clan. Prince Kimera had visited the palace of the king of Bunyoro and that is where he fathered Kimera in the above king’s wife. Unfortunately Kimera died there. Prince Kimera grew up in the palace of the king of Bunyoro. By the time Chwa I died, he had no son. Buganda elders picked up Kimera from Bunyoro and was enthroned as Buganda’s third king in 1374. The Kiganda saying that “when one becomes a chief, he attracts many friends” was then applicable to Kimera case, he was accompanied by many contingents of friends, from which he created twenty-eight (28) more clans to overlap the ones found in Buganda viz the original six, the thirteen created by Kato Kintu and the five created by King Chwa I. Since then Buganda has fifty-two clans. The successive kings to King Kimera never created more clans.

The Expansion of Buganda

At the time Buganda became autonomous, after the collapse of the Bachwezi’s Bunyoro Kitala kingdom around 1500, she only had the counties of Kyadondo, Busiro, Mawokoota, Busujju, Butambala, Ggomba, Kyaggwe and some parts of Bulemeezi and Singo counties. However the kings of Buganda waged constant wars on neighboring states of Bunyoro, Busoga, Nkore and Bukoba in Tanzania, annexed their lands and expanded. This was not until the 16 century, 150l – 1599 when Buganda surpassed the Babiito powerful Bunyoro. Buganda realized massive expansive in the beginning of the 17th century, 1601, when it annexed big hunks of land from the mentioned neighboring states.

The factors which facilitated Buganda’s growth mostly are two-fold, first it had successive astute dynamic leaders, while on the other hand her neighbours had successive indolent leaders. This made it easier to invade, defeat and annex their neighbours’ land. Secondly internal rivalry and disunity among neighbouring tribes made it easier for Buganda to defeat them. As Buganda’s neighbours were not united, they could not counter-attack Buganda in Union. However, the Baganda were so united and had the following saying “my king I shall never desert you, if attacked from the rear I shall counter-attack from the front and defend you” – such commitment and unity lacked in Buganda’s neighbours.

During the reign of King Nakibinge 1494-1524, Bunyoro almost overran Buganda. The war was so decisive that the Baganda ran out of spears. Baganda women responded by sharpening reeds which Baganda warriors used to defeat the Banyoro. This aspect earned King Nakibinge another name of “Omulwanyamuli” (the one who used reeds to fight).

From this event King Nakibinge passed a law that every adult Muganda man had to be with two (2) ready sharpened spears and a shield and on the alert to defend his motherland at any given time on hearing the sound of the drum “Gwanga mujje” (Luganda) tribesmen gather up/mobilize. This unwritten law was highly respected until June 1894 when colonialism disrupted it.

Due to the above factors Buganda had greatly expanded by the time John Speke and James Grant arrived in Buganda in 1862.

During the reign of King Kyabaggu 1749 – 1764. Black traders from coastal Mombassa and Zanzibar were selling wares like cloth, plates, dishes and small caliber guns in land. In 1844 the Arabs arrived at Lubiri (palace) of King Ssuna II (1824-1856) at Banda. These Arab traders were led by Sheikh Ahmed bin Ibrahim, on face value they came as ivory ad slave traders but their ulterior motive was Islam. The event marks the sowing of the first Moslem seed in Buganda and Uganda in general. Some Baganda embraced Islam, even King Muteesa I joined it although he was not circumcised due to tradition. So by the time Protestantism and Catholicism arrived, Islam was already in Buganda.

It also alleged that these Arab traders were chased to leave Buganda by King Ssuna for trying to…(import his people as slaves and as they were leaving the kingdom). They left with Queen Nanteza the wife of King Ssuna. Mutesa I’s mother Nanteza was such a pretty “wife whom the sultan of Zanzibar married and they produced a baby who became the sultan of Zanzibar (king). This sultan was a half brother to King Muteesa I that means there is a Kiganda blood in the Kingdom of Zanzibar.

To have an efficient dynamic Buganda Kingdom the kings created the following administrative structures.

1) A special chief (Omutongole) was the leader of each village, he had his own village council comprising of village elders. He was the custodian of security, peace, tranquility and development.

2) Ten (10) villages (made up a parish, muluka), which was led by a parish chief. His council was made up of representatives from ten villages which made up a parish. Crimes which exceed the Village Special Council (V.S.C.) jurisdiction were forwarded to the parish chief (P.C.) council. The parish chief was responsible for his parish seurity and development.

3) Ten parishes made up a sub county which was led by a sub county chief. His council was made up of representatives from the parishes. Issues above the parish council were forwarded to the sub-county council under the sub-county chief. The sub county chief was responsible for the overall welfare of his sub county.

4) Ten sub counties made up a county under a county chief. His council compromised of representatives from ten sub counties. Issues above the jurisdiction of the sub county chiefs were forwarded to the county chief. The county chief was responsible for the general welfares of his country.

5) The prime minister was the highest chief in Buganda. He was responsible for the general duties of the kingdom. (Although the king was the the top of the hierarchy and parliament – Lukikko). Because of his paramount role, he was referred to as the one responsible for everything/one who solves everything (Kamala byonna-luganda)

6) For this vital responsibility the king would had given him a rod scepter (a symbol of authority) called Ddamula -for judging-Buganda. The (Lukiiko) parliament was composed of county chiefs and other kings’ appointees. Issues which could not be solved by country chiefs were forwarded to this parliament which was presided over by the prime-minister. This then was the last court of appeal in Buganda. To avoid the king to be a despot, there was a special council in the official palace of the king’s mother called Nnamasole, where the king would go for counseling and guidance. This special council was presided over by Nnamasole’s brother, the king’s maternal uncle called Ssaabaganzi.

During the reign of King Mutebi I, 1664 – 1654, they created the office of Kibaale. The clan chief  Kiggye,clan leader of Mpewo clan, would nominate a young man of great promise from the lineage of Sseryaazi to the King’s palace. His work was to selle misunderstandings between the king and his wives. Ssekamwa ws the first man to become a Kibaale – to take office during the reign of King Mutebi I. The creation of that office justified the Kiganda saying that “none is above the law, even the king is judged by Kibaale”.

The Relationship of Buganda and the Conquered People

The Baganda had a cordial relationship with conquered people They never segregated them but rather taught them their language (Ganda) and their culture. They would choose and enter clans of their preference. It was a taboo to segregate a conquered person. Buganda men settled in conquered lands, taught people Ganda language and married conquered women in a bid to have as many children as possible and completely assimilate these conquered people.

The above aspect developed the following saying – it does not matter whether your mother is an alien (Munyoro) as long as she mothered you from a clan and go to Mbale (Mawokota Sub county) to your fellow mixed Baganda. This was an impolite saying used by a segregative Muganda, to a conquered person.

Generally conquered people were assimilated and became king’s subjects, to the extent that they would assume offices in the Buganda hierarchy, even up to Prime minister level. People from annexed regions felt at home because they were not segregated that was considerable security and relative peace in Buganda, unlike in areas where they had been conquered from. This coupled with economic development made the conquered people unwilling to return to their home land where internal conflicts were rife. Little wonder that these people joined hands with the native Baganda to invade and annex land from Buganda’s neighbors. The above Buganda assimilation policy helped it to expand and grow at the expense of her neighbors who were segregative.

They coined the following adage to justify it. The number (quality) of leglets determines the sound, – also a parent does not segregate children. The policy of accommodation, assimilation and unity was the secret behind Buganda’s expansion. That policy did not end with the beginning of British rule in Buganda in 1894, but continued until 1966 when Milton Obote crushed the Buganda Kingdom. A number of tribes like Banyoro, Batooro, Alur, Madi, Nubians, Kakwa, Acholi, Langi, Nyarwanda, Barundi and so many other tribes were found in Buganda and would assume any office and worked together to develop Buganda and Uganda. This accommodation and hospitality aspect partly explains why the Baganda and their king Sir Edward Muteesa supported Milton Obote a Langi instead of Ben Kiwanuka their fellow Mugandan.

The same aspect of accommodation also explains why different tribes and nationalities are still buying land and settling permanently in Buganda. The Baganda are culturally accommodative therefore one can easily access land without much hindrances as is prone in other areas of Uganda. There is less internal conflicts in Buganda and relative peace that why Buganda is referred to as Muzzanganda – state of brotherhood.

The zeal by which Baganda volunteered to extend missionary work to different parts of Uganda and even beyond, when Muteesa I invited them in 1875, is another testimony of their accommodation policy.

The Relationship of Buganda Kings with Other Kings

Although Buganda expanded at the expense of her neighbors as already observed, the kings of Buganda never made permanent enemies after invading and annexing land from her neighbors. This was so until the coming of the first Europeans namely Speke and Grant in 1862.  In the above arrangement, during the reign of King Mutesa I the King of Kooki decided to annex his kingdom to that of Buganda on good will.

In another development when King Kabalega wanted to restore the Kingdom of Tooro to Bunyoro, which King Kaboyo truncated off  Bunyoro in 1830, King Kasagama sought assistance from Buganda’s King Mwanga. Up to date, Tooro has kept Buganda kingdom in high esteem because it saved it from being subjugated.

During the religious wars in Buganda in 1888 – 1892, the King of Nkole, Ntale gave King Mwanga the county of Kabula to resettle the fleeing Catholics, since then that county ceased to belong to Nkore kingdom and became one of Buganda’s counties.

Again during the above wars when King Kalema, who was heading the Moslems was defeated, he sought asylum in King Kabalega’s palace in 1988.

In another development, the Kings of Busoga sent musicians and dancers to the Kings of Buganda. They were allotted a whole village called Kyebando in Kampala.

When King Mwanga II realized that the British had usurped his power, he joined hands with Kabalega of Bunyoro and seriously fought the British until 1890 when they were both captured in Lango. The above aspects show that although Buganda used to wage wars to her neighbors and annexed their land, there was no permanent enemy in politics, your enemy today can be your best friend tomorrow. That is why when Obote abolished kingdoms in 1967, the blow was felt by Buganda alone but all kingdoms in Uganda, like Busoga, Nkore, Tooro, etc.

List of Buganda Kings and Their Dates of Rule

1.  Kakaba (King Kintu 1200 – 1230
2.  Kakaba  Chwa I 1200 – 1275
3.  Kakaba  Kimera 1275 – 1330
4.  Kakaba  Lumansi 1330 – 1350
5.  Kakaba  Tembo 1350 – 1360
6.  Kakaba  Kiyula 1360 – 1380
7.  Kakaba  Kayima 1415 – 1440
8.  Kakaba  Kiyimba 1380 – 1400
9.  Kakaba  Nakibinge 1400 – 1490
10.  Kakaba  Mulondo 1490 – 1510
11.  Kakaba  Jemba 1510 – 1530
12.  Kakaba  Ssuna 1530- 1555
13.  Kakaba  Sekamanya 1555 – 1590
14.  Kakaba  Kimbugwe 1590 – 1610
15.  Kakaba Katerega 1610 – 1650
16.  Kakaba Mutebi 1650 – 1670
17.  Kakaba  Jjuko 1670 – 1682
18.  Kakaba Kayembo 1682 – 1690
19.  Kakaba  Tebaneke 1690 – 1700
20.  Kakaba  Ndawula 1700 – 1710
21.  Kakaba  Kagulu 1710 – 1720
22.  Kakaba Kikulwe 1720 – 1740
23.  Kakaba Mawanda 1740 – 1760
24.  Kakaba  Tembo 1760 – 1760

(10 days)25. Kakaba  Namugala   1760-1770 [?]26. Kakaba Kyabagu1770 – 178027. Kakaba  Jjunju1780 – 179728. Kakaba  Semakokilo1797 – 181429. Kakaba Kamanya1814 – 183230. Kakaba  Ssuna II1832 – 185631. Kakaba  Muteesa I1856 – 188432. Kakaba  Mwanga I1884 – 188833. Kakaba  Kiwewa1888 – 1888

(73 days)34. Kakaba Kalema1888 – 188935. Kakaba Mwanga II1889 – 189736. Kakaba  Daudi  Chwa II1897 – 1939 37. Kakaba  Muteesa II1939 – 196738. Kakaba  Mutebi II    1993 – Present

The author was born in a small town of Mengo (The Traditional capital and headquarters of  Buganda Kingdom) in Mengo Hospital where he was born was a missionary founded hospital which was built by the first (C.M.S.) Church Missionary society To Uganda who arrived in 1877 from Britain. His parents being good Christians they had to use it too for his birth. The author was born in a war conditions whereby the rebels led by President Museveni were fighting to overthrow the government of Dr. Apollo Milton Obote therefore he is a ward born child.

2006 @ Nicholas Kawalya Ssewanyana ssewa_nicholes@yahoo.com

The Contacts for the clan heads for the Engambi clan.Buganda is built on our 52 clans.

Standard

 

Engabi Nsamba
(Nsamba)
Head Name: Kamoga Joseph
0774 097805
Clan Katikkiro: Kiwano Mulyanga
0772 505535
Home Grounds: Buwanda Mawokota


Engabi Nyunga

(Kannyana)
Head Name: Matovu Emmanuel
0703 060510
Clan Katikkiro: Damiano Lubega
0772 410510
Home Grounds: Bwende Buddu

 

 

Ebikolobero bya batusi eri abantu ba great lakes region

Standard

Bwetutu nula mubyaffayo bya batusi abagobwa mu Rwanda olwe biko lwa byo butemu wakati wa 1958-59 tukizula nti ebikolwa bino batambula nabyo bayagala nyo okuyingi ra mubitongole ebya bangamu okutemula abantu nokubatulugunya ebyo bukesi ku Obote eyasoka mu general service unit ne ku Idi Amin state research bureau.

Muba no Museven mweyali abatusi bano balina omuzeomulala ogwo kukola ebikolobero nebatteka omusango kubantu abalala wakati wa 1972-79. Abatusi nga bali ne Obote e Tanzania bayingiranga mu Uganda ngabakolagana nebanabwe abalinga mu state research bureau nebatta abantu abatutumuffu nga ba Benedictor Kiwanuka omusangone baguteka ku Idi Amin wakati wa 1981-86 abatusi. Nga bali ebulemezi bakwata nga abavubuka bebulemezi abali bayi ngidde mu gyelyabwe elya National Resistance Army nebabambaza ebyamba lo bye gye lya Obote erya Uganda national liberation army ekilo.

Nebagenda mu mayumba ga batuze bomu byalo bye bulemezi nebattamu abantu bona abakulu enyo nobwana obuto enyo nebalekamu abavubuka abavu buse mu kumakya nebasindika abavubuka bebulemezi abase abantu bomu maka ago ngababagamba bagende nabo bayingi re mu magye ga NRA barwanyise abajjasi ba Obote abase abantu babwe abavubuka abagananga okuyingira mu magye ga Museven bakomangawo ekilo nebaba tta eno yenkola Museven gyeyakozesa okuyingiza abantu bebulemezi mu NRA era yengeri eyaffula abantu bebulemezi ebiwuddu wuddu nga Museven nebwa babonya bonya atya tebasobola muvako engeli endala Museven gyeyattangamu abantu bebulemezi yalinga yakubakunga nya wamu nga agamba nti amagyege gajja baku ma egye lya Obote lilemeku batta bwe bwatu kanga ekilo nga bebase nga abasilikale be aba NRA abatemya ko mpola nga bavawo olwava ngawo nga basajja ba Museven ababera nga mu byalo okuleta amawulire bategeza abavubuka Obote beyali atendese mubyalo aba youth wing nti abayeka ra bali wano egye lya Obote bwelya jjanga nga litta busi buli muntu gwe lya sanga ngawo abantu bebulemezi bwe bagenda bategera obukodyo bwa Museven obwo battisa nebagana nga okusemberera abantu ba NRA kino kyanyiza nyo Museven ne basajjabe aba NRA nebatandika nga okuyiga buli muntu yena eyali asigadde ebulemezi nebamusi ba akandoya nebamukuba akakumbiku mutwe naffa nga asowosemu olu limi emilambo gyabantu bano bagiku nga nyanga wamu bana mawulire nga muno ne wililliam pike mweyali editor wa new vision babalaganga emilambo gino nebakungiriza obutemu bwa Obote negye lye elya Uganda national liberation army mu 1986 Museven nga ya kawamba kampala yatula ne ba directors be aba intelligence mugisha muntu ne jim muhezi nebawandika abavubuka aba chori nebabatendeka mu bukesi oluvanyuma nebaba zayo mu achori babalagira okutandikawo enkambi zobuyekera nebakwatanga abaana abato mu achori nebabaragira okusala ko abantu emimwa nokola ebikorwa ebya mbyone mu achori nga bagamba nti kony muchori munabwe awakanya gavument yakoze ebyo enkola ya battusi eno eyo kutta abantu bebasubira obalwa nyisa mu bungi omusango nebagusa kubantu abalala ebayambye nyo okuso bola okubera mu buyinza ebanga eddene banabwe lyebatamala. wakati wa 1984-85 Museven salim saleh fred Rwegyema mugisha muntu jim muhezi david tinyefunza paul kagame frank guma byensi biganja ne fuluma banonya abanyarwa nda bona aba tusi abali mu Uganda ne babatwala mu nsozi ze rwenzori awali enkambi ya NRA eyali eyitibwa mulima barracks biganja ne byensi bawebwa omulimu gwo kutendeka abanyarwanda bano frank guma yawebwa omulimu gwo ku lisa nokwambaza abanyarwanda bano ku sente zebali babye mu bank ze masindi,hoima,fort portal ne kabala mu 1986 nga abatusi bawambya gavument Fred Rwegyema eyali deputy army commander wa NRA atenga yeyali akulira ekibinja kyabanyarwanda kino yakwa sa ekibinja ekimu Jim Muheze ne mugisha muntu okukitwala mu East Germany kitendekebwe mu bukesi eki binja kya banya Rwanda ekyatwali bwa mu East Germany bwekyali kikoma wo kyadda ne pistol mutwalo gumu radio 4 ne bwuma ebyeyambisi bwa mu bukesi ebintu bino byona bya terekebwa mu store ze kito ngo le kyo bukesi internal security organisation e nakasero fred Rwegyema yatekawo ekito ngole kyobulimi ekya magye NRA Farm nga kino kyali kya kwe kwasa nga ayagala kugula majjambiya mbazi ne NSO ekito ngole kino yakitekako batumbya eyali ava ebululi asobole okubuzabuza era yalagira batumbya okugula embazi amajjambiya ne nso mu Uganda bati, jinja steel mill, ne sembule investment ebintu bino byona byatwali bwanga e kasese ate eyo gyebabijjanga nebabi teka mu bus za Samuel black ne john katoto eza vanga fort portal kasese nezi genda ekabale eyo yeyali enkambi endala eyali eyitibwa milama hill barracks nga eno yali ekulilwa fuluma wano abanyarwanda bona abali batendekedwa okuva mu 1984 webayitiranga okuyingira mu Rwanda okubega nokusimba amakanda. Mu October 1990 egye lya Uganda National Resistance Army rya lumba Rwanda mu butongole nga deputy army commander we gye lya Uganda fred Rwegyema yaliddu mira olutalo luno olwatwala emya ena nga sente zomuwi womusolo owa Uganda yazisasula abantu ba Rwanda tebaluwagira nga na batusi banabwe benyimi abasigala mu Rwanda tebawagidde batusi banabwe abali bavudde e Uganda mu april wa 1994 egye lya Uganda elya li liddu mirwa abanyarwanda paul kagame nga lyeyita Rwanda patriotic front lyatta habyalimana juvinali eyali president wa Rwanda ne ndadaye eyali president wa bulundi nga bombi bali ba hutu amangudda la nga egye lino lya kata ba president bombi lyajja yo amajjambiya ,embazi ,enso agakolebwa mu Uganda genayogeddeko emabega nelitandika okutema abatusi era lya jjayo ne radio enya ezava e Uganda zenayogeddeko nebazi kozesa okuyita aba hutu batte batusi banabwe okumanya abatusi bano abava e Uganda bali bategese obutemu buno batambuza radio zino mubitundu bya Rwanda byona namajjambiya ne mbazzi ngabwe bakubiriza abahutu okutta abatusi bona mu Rwanda nga mu kukola kino balina ebigendererwa bibiri

Abatusi abava e Uganda bali bakimanyinti abatusi abasigala mu Rwanda bali tebajja kukiriza batusi bava Uganda kutugumbula nakutulugunya bahutu bebalinabo emya ka emingi nga tewali akola mune bulabe nga ekyali kijja okuddirira abatusi abasigala mu Rwanda bali bajja kwegata nabuhutu barwanyise abatusi bano abali bavudde e Uganda babawangule nga okutta abatusi abalimu Rwanda kyabayamba okuza abatusi abasigala mu Rwanda kuludda lwa batusi bano abali bavudde e Uganda olwo abahuttu nebaffu libwa abalabe.

Oluvanyuma lwa batusi abava e Uganda okutandika obutemu obwaffiramu abatusi abasigala mu Rwanda abangii enyo ensi yona yakyawa aba hutu nga buli muntu yena awulira kigambo mu hutu ayagala kutta mutte. Aba mawulire okuva munsi yona bajja okunonyereza amawulire agali gajjudde entisa olwo butemu obwa manyi obwali buta labika ngako omusasi wamawulire omungereza William pike akubira poko poko abatusi bano buli lwebamala okutugumbula abantu bomu mawanga gona gebatugumbu ddemu abantu bago nga sudan,Rwanda,congo yakakasiza ddaranga bahutu bwe bali basse abatusi murwanda era kino kyawa abatusi abattemu abava e Uganda ba paul kagame olukusa lwe bali betaga okutta, okutulugunya no kussiba buli mu hutu yena gwe baba bagadde nga buli mu hutu bwagezako okwe lwana ko ba musako omusango gwo kutta aba ttusi mu 1994 bwoba nakaku nkuna soka webuze nti lwaki abatusi abava mu Uganda bamala genda mu Rwanda abahutu nebatta abatusi bebali babadde nabo ebanga eddene? ebanga lyona bali teba manyi nti bali batusi? ebulemezi lwaki ekitundu ekyali mu abatusi 1981-86 kyekyatibwa mu abantu abangi? Mu achori lwaki ekifundu ekyali mu egye lya batusi kyekya ffamu abantu abangi? ekisera kituse abantu okuzibuka amaso mutegere nti abatusi bano abakajjala mu Buganda bakutusanyo wo ffena nga tutunula abaganda nabantu bamawanga ga Uganda abalala musanye okuzibuka amaso okweddi mila abatusi bano nga tebanatusisanyawo waliwo akakodyo akalala abatusi kebategese nga bagulilidde abantu bomululyo lwo bwa kabaka bwa Buganda bakayane ne bana bwe abarangira oluvanyuma babakwase emundu batandika okutingana ekintu kino abaganda muyinza okitwala nga olusago naye mukirinde kijja wabula bwekinatuka abaganda ffena kijja kututwalilamu nalumanya ne salumanya ate era eno eyinza okuba enkomerero ya Buganda abatussi gyebatutegeke dde otusanyawo gano gemazima bwe muba mukiwaka nya musoke mwebuze lwaki Museven ye muntu yeka mubana kyemalila bona ababaddewo eya yokya amalalo gaba kkabaka babuganda?

Ebyo bye byange mwebale ku wuliliza
Kasozi mukasa

Last Will of King Muteesa II

Standard

Last Will of King Muteesa II

Muteesa II

This is the official translation of Ssekabaka Edward Mutesa’s will, approved by Mayanja Nkangi (then Katikkiro), as a true translation and authenticated by Andrew Frederick Mpanga on March 3, 1970 in London:

  • I, Edward Frederick William David Walugembe Mutebi Luwangula Mutesa II of MMENGO, P.O.Box 58, KAMPALA. This is my Will, which I am making in the event of my demise when the Lord pleases to take me away from this world.

  • My children. The following are my natural children, sons and daughters:-

    1. Ronald Frederick Muwenda Mutebi (the son of Omuzaana Kabejja).
    2. Dorothy Namukabya Nassolo.
    3. Anne Sarah Kagere.
    4. Suna (who lives in Mr. Augustine M. Bakaluba’s home).
    5. Ndawula (the son of the late Muzaana Nalwoga).
    6. Catherine Nabaloga
    7. Mukarukidi (who lives in Toro).
    8. Masamba (who lives with the Namasole at Namulesa).
    9. Goloba (who lives at Mr. Blasio K.Kavuma’s)

  • MY HEIR. My child No.1. Ronald Frederick Muwenda Mutebi is my heir whom I have chosen to succeed me (to succeed to my Mutuba).

  • Succession to the Kabakaship. On the matter of the election of the Kabaka or the successor to the Kabakaship. This is well known that he is elected by the Lukiiko, he is that Prince chosen by the majority of the members of the Lukiiko, however, in this MY WILL I feel that I must indicate my opinion to my people.

    The Princes enumerated in the following order should be considered first for election:-

    (i) My heir Ronald Frederick Muwenda Mutebi. As I have not got a son born within wedlock, my said heir should be considered first of all for succession to the Kabakaship.
    (ii) Or – one of my children the brothers of that Prince No.1 above.
    (iii) Or – my younger brother Henry H. Kimera

  • The Election of the Kabaka. As I have already pointed out in the foregoing, I leave this matter to the people (the Lukiiko representing the people) to elect from among those I have already mentioned above.

  • MY property. All my property, and its distribution among my children and some other members of my family, are listed in a schedule attached to this Will.

  • Trustees: The following are the Trustees whom I have chosen and hereby empower to deal with my children’s affairs:-

    1. The Namasole
    2. The Nalinya Mary Nakamanya
    3. Owek Mikaeri Kintu
    4. Omw. A.R.Lule

    It must be understood that if one of the Trustees mentioned above dies the remaining three shall meet and choose another person to fill the vacancy caused by that death; and the person chosen shall first of all be introduced to the Katikkiro, the Ministers and the Regents, after which introductions the person will act as one of the Trustees.

    AND if the Trustees find any difficulty in the execution of their duties they shall bring that difficulty to the notice of the Katikkiro in office for the time being for his advice and decision, for according to the Kiganda customs and traditions, The Katikkiro is charged with the welfare of this country’s Princes and Princesses of the Mugaguzo.

  • Regents: As the custom is the matter of the election of Regents before a young Kabaka comes of age, that matter is within the competence of the Lukiko; but if my No.1 heir Prince Ronald Frederick Muwenda Mutebi, is elected to be the next Kabaka whereby his mother becomes the Namasole, then the Namasole must be elected as one of the Regents.

  • I have signed this MY WILL and approved of same while in complete possession of my faculties and in good health, today 6th August 1956, before my Trusted Witnesess who were present and saw me put my signature to this Will.

I, Edward Frederick Wm. Mutebi Mutesa.

WE THE WITNESESS PRESENT:-

  1. I.T.M Sewanyana.

  2. Musa K.Parma Ntanda

  3. Robert H.Ntambi Mukasa.

I the undersigned Andrew Frederick Mpanga of 37 Elgin Crescent London W.11 hereby certify that the above is a true and accurate translation from the Luganda language into the English language of the Will of His Highness the Late Sir Edward Frederick William David Walugembe Mutebi Luwangula Mutesa II, K.B.E.; Kabaka of Buganda.

Dated March 3, 1970 (Signature appended)

Did you know why Masaka lost its edge Matoke-wise?

Standard

Some say it was sabotage to make sure the country’s Matoke supplies come from a certain area of Uganda only!  Do you agree?

“Dieldrin was the major pesticide used against Banana weevils.  However, its use was stopped when there was a widespread destruction of Banana plantations in Masaka [central Uganda]. The destruction of banana plantations was attributed to the use of either adulterated Dieldrin or the use of an entirely different chemical imported as dieldrin. Dieldrin was then substituted with furadan and, so it was claimed, the unused dieldrin stocks were subsequently dumped in the environment by farmers.” Wasswa et al. Chemosphere 82 (2011) 130-136.

Read the attached document on the link below:

MATOOKE

Both the British and Baganda Highly Respected Sir Edward Muteesa II

Standard

Sir Edward was not only a British trained military officer, but was an instructor himself in the Grenadier Guards. As you might guess, British Army is not some *taka taka* African army where some officer might be made an instructor simply because of some top connections. Sir Edward was worthy his pips and medals and so, had to make the right decision at the right time after weighing a situation that deserves a split of a second action.

Sir Edward though still a minor, had the advantage of receiving lectures from his father; the late Sir Daudi Ccwa II. It was not just by chance that he was made the 35th Kabaka of Buganda.  Sir Daudi Ccwa II, himself was also a trained British Officer.

The Cohen Plan “B” was to be executed in the beginning of November 1939 (Note the coincidence of the month of November) by the then Governor, Sir Philip Mitchell, but due to the failing health of the Ssabasajja, the British thought it unwise in Military Strategic terms, to appear to be antagonising a sickly man (equivalent of shooting a defenceless man in the back). They instead banked on ‘terrorizing’ the next of kin. Unfortunately for them, the next of kin was even more tough a nut to crack than Sir Daudi Ccwa II. Sir Edward’s resistance to the British gave a booster shot in the arm of the Mau Mau.

Sir Edward Muteesa II touched not only the social life of the Baganda and Ugandans, but also the British. For your information, this was evident on 15th October 1955 when he organised a party to bid farewell to his colleagues after the blunder of Sir Andrew Cohen on 30th Nov 1953. To the surprise of many Britons who thought that Sir Edward by now  would harbour ill-feelings towards them, the Knight of the British Empire  invited even the Lords, Dukes, Duchesses, Counts et al of the British  Empire, the very one that had tried to humiliate them.
The point here is that despite that reported lavishness, the Brits loved and  respected him (Sir Edward) for bringing them together, as you know  the  Brits are inward people (we call it *Ggume* in Luganda) and rarely make  get-together parties, so they always enjoyed being brought together by this Royal from the Pearl of Africa, King Freddie.
So, whoever is attacking Sir Edward should know that he/she is not only  attacking Buganda, but also the descendants of the Lords, Dukes, Duchesses, Counts, Grenadier Guards Comrades-in-Arms Association and the Royal family of England, who held Sir Edward in high esteem thereafter.

Awangaale Ssabasajja

Robert Nviiri

Amin’s first Cabinet of Feb 1971 had few Muslims but he later corrected this

Standard

Muslims continue to be marginalised in Museveni’s cabinet as has been the case for the last 10 years. Most of the big cabinet positions, apart from probably finance where Saida Bumba has been for a while, the rest have been occupied by people of other faith. I don’t know the merit the president bases on to chose his ministers which most Muslims cannot fulfil. Obote 2 did not have a single Muslims in his cabinet. It is like Muslims are somehow the forgotten species in the cabinets of Uganda.The powerful positions next to presidency in govt are: VP, PM, speaker, minister of Defence or security, and minister of finance

In USA, for instance, members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission dominate key positions in America’s government, military, industries, media outlets and educational foundations and institutions. CFR was founded in 1921 to make Americans more aware of their international responsibilities. It is a much large network of people with power and they are almost everywhere and help each other into juicy positions in both public and private sectors. So the question is: who helps president Museveni to nominate certain people in juicy positions where Muslims end up always on the peripheral of things. I dont think it’s the NRM caucas as the media has made us believe recently.

Amin’s original cabinet did not have enough Muslims too but he later sorted this out. Having a Muslim in a cabinet is mainly meant to have some sort of role models for the younger generation. It also encourages the young people to involve themselves in politics other than just business.

During Iddil Amin,Uganda was admited as an islamic country at a conference in Lahore, pakistan in 1974 and Amin tried a lot to help Muslims during his reign. He united different factions and he gave us a lot of land around Kampala including Old Kampala where Gadafi mosque stands.

According to the 1958 consensus, i think muslims were not more than 5%. Because we are a minority, we have always needed catholics and protestants at our side to break into elective politics.This means that a muslim president or Vice president can act as a bridge between different religions in Uganda if given a chance to lead, and does not need to turn Uganda into an Islamic state which was somehow the dream of Iddil Amin. Non-Muslims can vote for a Muslim president looking at him as a bridge to unite everybody despite whatever happened under Iddil Amin, and it is our job as Muslims to make them think that way.

Muslims in general do not discriminate people based on religions despite some religious domains that encourage us to look at non-Muslims as our ”enemies”. In Senegal, there was a catholic president called Leopold Senghol but the majority of the population that voted for him were Muslims.In Tanzania, Julius Nyerere was a catholic but muslims loved him in big numbers. Museveni1(1986-1998) was also loved and supported by majority of Muslims before he came to power though he is forgotten about us. The closure of Greenland Bank was not a good gesture at all. It was a stab in the back side.

Unlike Muslims, protestants have produced national and traditional leaders that have helped them to unite them. For instance, Most of the Kabakas have been protestants including the current one. Obote was a protestant and presided over cabinets dominated by protestants in Obote  and Obote 2. Catholics have also continued to be atleast well representated because they are the majority in Uganda.Muslims were also united when Amin was in power but it was short lived because since then we have not been having strong national characters to unite us. We have been divided under Museveni than any other time in history and he has not done much to sort it out, apart from taking sides which is not a good sign of a good leader.

That’s why, atleast, it would have benefited us if we had a strong Muslim Vice president or prime minister but Museveni has always given the strong posts in his cabinet to people of other faith. The strong posts in the govt are: VP, PM, Minister of defence, chief Justice, Speaker, Minister of security, Minister of finance( Bumba had this one but she is out now to Gender ministry).

Basically, TWAVILIDEMU AWO some NRM supporters are gonna tell you otherwise.Below is the list of those who were in Amin’s 1ST CABINET for those who wanna see their faces. Wassalamu

Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Col.Owiny warns the Commanders of Uganda people Defence Forces

Standard

The Commanders of Uganda people Defence Forces

Subject: Popular will of the People

It is now coming to 5o years since Uganda attained her independence from the British government.

During those years the country has been governed by various regimes, both military and political.

However, in the past 25years, many organisation, the international communities and others to remain in power, sitting “stability” as paramount rather than having any genuinely democratically elected government have supported the government of Uganda.

In the coming days, the people of Uganda will once again participate in the generation election to elect their leaders, using their votes.

This election should be conducted in a free , fair and transparent atmosphere. Therefore, it is upon the Uganda peoples defence Forces, the Uganda Police and other security organisation to understand that:

1. The role of Uganda Peoples Defence Forces is for the Defence of the nation and protection of lives and properties of its people.

2. The role of Uganda police is for the maintenance of law and order in the country. They should police in the service of the nation and its people.

3. People servicing in all security forces in Uganda are sons and daughters of Ugandans. Their Ugandan parents who pay taxes to the government of Uganda pay for the equipments and weapons that they use.

4. The people of Uganda have faith and trust in their security organisation. it is important that faith and trust from the citizens must be maintained because we are all Ugandans, belonging to one country and living under one flag.

5. Some politician may want to take cover under the umbrella of the Army, Police and the other internal security organisations before, during and after elections to advance and achieve their political ambitions.

6. Its is high time for those individuals serving in various security organisations to consider their positions when it comes to meddling in the political affairs of the nation. They can either remain to be members of the armed forces or other security organisation or resign from the security service because you can not serve two masters at the same time.

7. The concept of one man rule including that of inheritance is now a past by say way of handing power in the country.

8. Its now evident that peaceful wind=d of change driven by the will of the people is blowing across Africa. Uganda will not be an exception if we want to avoid a “tsunamis” We expect daughter and sons in the security forces to identify with consensus of the populace.

9. In conclusion, you are hereby called upon to ensure you and all members of security services demonstrate your professionalism, rise above all challenges during and after this coming general elections in the name of the pearl of Africa.

For God My Country

Yours Sincerely

Wilson Owiny

Colonel (PSC)

East Africans remain attached to Old Chieftains and Kingdoms; is this a recipe for secessionists?

Standard

East African March 21-27, Charles Onyango-Obbo’s article; “East Africans may still romanticise old Chieftains” is spot on in title. However, it may be argued that the cessation tendencies are yet to materialise in the hearts and minds of the citizens.  On the contrary; most citizens have considered colonial boundaries sacred and sought ways of fitting in via federal or regional sub-groupings with; legislative, executive and judicial functions to enjoy economies of security and centralised economic redistribution for overall growth at the national level. Ghana set the pace, Ethiopia is a new successful one and Kenya’s new landmark constitution sets the pace in the EAC for regional governments. “Democratic federalism has played a major and vital role in the economic success of Ethiopia.” H.E. Meles Zenawi

 

It is the subjugation of these hopes and aspirations as predicted by Rousseau in his classic book; “The Social Contract” where most legislatures make laws for the ruling parties or the autocrats of the day that are often at variance with the citizens’ aspirations.  The lack of autochthony of colonial derived artificial republican autocratic constitutions lies at the heart of most conflicts that we have experienced so far on the African continent and also fuels secessionist tendencies in the extreme case.

Otherwise; if legislatures accommodated these Chiefdoms and Kingdoms in constitutional monarchies and regional sovereigns; as opposed to opportunist resource seeking quasi colonial-like pretences at republics and the associated neo patrimonial state largesse at the expense of the body citizen. Secessionist dangers would be non-existent, and African society would be better off and largely free from conflict and so much waste and death.

Constitutional autochthony is the process of asserting constitutional nationalism from an external legal or political power. The source of autochthony is the Greek word αὐτόχθων translated as springing from the land.  It usually means the assertion of not just the concept of autonomy, but also the concept that the constitution derives from their own native traditions. The autochthony, or home grown nature of constitutions, give them authenticity and effectiveness. It was important in the making and revising of the constitutions of India, Pakistan, Ghana, South Africa, Sierra Leone, Zambia and many other members of the British Commonwealth, Wikipedia. It remains critical that all further attempts at constitutional democracy in EAC should not lose sight of this principle.

UK is a very successful union of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. They are regional sovereigns in a larger one. It is important to note that being part of the UK does not mean you have to give up your Scottishness or Englishness. In Africa that would be described by a derogatory term tribe. There is nothing to suggest for example that Buganda was not a nation with all the 3 arms of the state present in an autochthonous setting.

In a federal setting; the social-economic, cultural and political freedom would lead to better allocation of resources and reduce corruption hence leading to long term political stability- a pre-requisite for economic growth and social economic transformation.

The great Winston Churchill stated that some countries think that by getting rid of their monarchs and ridiculing them; and renaming themselves the republic of this or that; they have suddenly developed and gotten rid of poverty of the mind and pocket and assume that they have founded  sustainable countries. On the contrary; he argues that in Britain they have learnt to accommodate their monarchs and they are thriving. While you can’t certainly say the same (thriving); for the many African republics that did away with monarchs in the mainly Marxist Leninist revolutions of the day, the latest one to crumble is Libya.

In the weak social political republic setting; EAC will be a federation of structurally weak sovereigns whose citizens are yet to be comfortable with a dominant often corrupt and rent seeking autocratic republic setting often at logger heads with the most cherished and revered Kings and chiefs. Buganda Kingdom is a case in point; does it want to secede? No, is it happy being in the current Uganda and its Laws? No.

Then it must be the case that the solution lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes; centralised republic or secession. An autochthonous federation still remains the ideal long term solution to Uganda’s socio political problems. Indeed the 1962 independence constitution was the closest thing to the ideal solution.

These aspirations we are lucky are still being pursued via peaceful political means; should the youngsters decide to demand for their God given rights forcefully; then the ensuing violence would render many years of economic progress wasted. The secessionist risk remains a real risk in Uganda; given the irrational exuberance on the part of legislatures that often love to be the centre of attraction with little regard to their specific heritage. Silencing the voices of the much cherished Kings and Chiefs may backfire with far reaching ramifications to the current dominant largely unitary republican constitution.

At the 5th International Conference on Federalism December 13 – 16, 2010 at the United Nations Conference Centre, Addis Ababa H.E Meles Zenawi stated that: “Ethiopia has throughout its long history endeavoured to develop a system of governance that embraces its diversity- one that helps it to transform its extraordinary diversity from an existential threat to a deep well of strength and dynamism with little success. Indeed the management of its diversity has for centuries constituted a primary challenge- a challenge that has massively contributed to its centuries long journey backwards from the frontline of world civilization to one of the poorest countries on earth. Our experiment with Democratic Federalism over the past two decades must thus be seen as one in a line of attempts to achieve unity in Diversity. All indications so far suggest that this is at last a successful experiment”

It seems that for stability to prevail there is a role to play by the Chieftains and Kingdoms, love them or hate them. They remain popular and thus will play critical roles in the social economic transformation of their people. It is about time they are viewed as part of the solution.

Abubaker B. Mayanja

 

The writer is a Financial Economist and formerly a Research Fellow at the Economic Policy Research Centre.

UAH should have an official Representative in Lukiiko and National parliament

Standard

Some of the newly appointed Lukiiko members take an oath at Bulange yesterday(the Monitor newspaper)

Dear Ugandans,

We thank the Kabaka of Buganda, Ronald Muwenda Mutebi 11, for having selected a strong team that is going to represent us in the Lukiiko. We hope the team below will do a good job for Buganda and make very good decisions that will contribute to the endless strength and visibility of the kingdom.

As members of Ugandans At Heart (UAH), we request the Kabaka to also put us into consideration and give us a representative in the next Lukiiko. We believe we are doing a tremendous job in outlining, fighting for and discussing the challenges the kingdom is facing in this century, such that our representation will strengthen our case to do this important job very well.

For the mean time, we thank the Kabaka for his great leadership and choosing some of the UAH members to be part of the new Lukiiko. We especially want to thank him for having chosen Mr.Kalundi Sserumaga as part of his team. This member faced a lot of challenges last year but we did a lot to expose his problems using the UAH network. We believe he will be a good servant to Buganda and the Kabaka and we wish him good luck.

We also request the national parliament to consider creating a slot of a special UAH representative in the future parliament since the forum is mostly connected with the problems of Ugandans abroad. With this slot, we shall be able to communicate to parliament directly what we think are the required changes needed to take our country forward. Other details on how to select, nominate or vote for the UAH representative will be sorted out, as soon as the government guarantees the creation of this constituency. Ugandans abroad have got  a lot of problems that we feel should be debated on a regular basis in our parliament, and there is no better way of doing this than having somebody representing them in parliament.

Below is the list of the members of the Great Buganda Lukiiko( 2011), extracted from the Buganda Kingdom website:

1.    Oweek. Eng. John Baptist Walusimbi          – Prime Minister (Katikkiro)
2.    Oweek. Haji Musa Kaddu Sserunkuuma       – Speaker
3.    Oweek. Dr. Higiro Semajege                    – Deputy Speaker
4.    Oweek. Emmanuel L Ssendaula               – 1st Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Buganda Affairs Abroad
5.    Oweek. Haji Yusuf Nsubuga Nsambu        – 2nd Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Heritage, Royal Tombs and Tourism 6.    Owek. Apollo N. Makubuya                   – Attorney General and Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs
Research
7.    Oweek. Eva Nagawa Mukasa                  – Minister of Finance.
8.    Oweek. Charles Peter Mayiga                – Minister for Lukiiko, Cabinet  Affairs, Information and Spokesman of the Buganda Government.
9.    Oweek. Dr. Fred Masagazi Masaazi             – Minister for Education & Sports
10.    Oweek. Edward Katimbo Mugwanya       – Minister for Special Buganda
Projects
11.    Oweek. Jolly Lutaaya                         – Minister for Local Government, Community Mobilisation

Co-operatives
12.    Oweek. Tony Kiyimba Kaggwa        – Minister of Lands & Public Buildings

13.    Oweek. Mohamood Thobani            – Minister for Economic Planning and Development
14.    Oweek. Nelson Kawalya                    – Minister of Health.
15.    Oweek. Edward Lutaaya Mukomazi        – Minister of Agriculture, Animal
Husbandry, Fisheries, Forestry and
the Environment
16.    Oweek. Kaddu Kiberu                       – Minister for Industries, Trade,
Works and Technology
17.    Oweek. Apolonia Mugumbya            – Minister for Gender and Community Development

18.    Oweek. Ahmed Bamweyana                 – Minister for Water, Power, Natural Resources
19.    Oweek. Florence Bagunywa Nkalubo       – Minister for Youth and Employment
20.    Oweek. Amb. William S. K. Matovu        – Minister for Royal Treasury & Chief Palace Advisor.
21.    Oweek. Israel Mayengo                     – Minister without Portfolio in the Office of the Katikkiro                                                                         22.    Oweek. Kabuuza Mukasa Namuddala    – Minister of State for Royal Visits & Royal Tours
23.    Oweek. Twaha Kaawaase            – Minister of State for Finance
24.    Oweek. David Mpanga             – Minister of State for Research
25.    Oweek. Herbert Ssemakula            – Minister of State for Sports
26.    Oweek. Florence Nakiwala Kiyingi        – Minister of State for Tourism
27.    Oweek. Rajni Tailor                – Minister of State for Economic Planning & Economic Development
28.    Oweek. Omar Mandera            – Minister of State for Management & Development of the Royal Treasury
29.    Oweek. Ahmed Lwasa            – Minister of State for Education
30.    Oweek. Haji Simbwa Bunnya            – Minister of State for Agriculture, Animal husbandry, Fisheries,     Forestry and Environment
31.    Oweek. Mariam Nkalubo Mayanja         – Minister of State for Women  Development
32.    Oweek. Samalie Mwanje            – Minister of State for Protocol
33.    Oweek. John Elly Ssentongo            – Minister of State for Environment

MASAZA CHIEFS

34.    Oweek. Ponsiono Kawotto Sengendo            – Sebwana, Busiro
35.    Oweek. Charles Balogali Kiyimba Kwewaayo    – Pokino, Buddu
36.    Oweek. Sevume Musoke                 – Bugerere, Bugerere
37.    Oweek. Yusuf Gaganga                – Kasujju, Busujju
38.    Oweek. Lawrence Sserugunda            – Luweekula, Buweekula
39.    Oweek. Katende Girigoli                – Mbuubi, Buvuma
40.    Oweek. Medard Kiwanuka                – Kitunzi, Gomba
41.    Oweek. T. Malwokweza Kivumbi            – Kaggo, Kyadondo
42.    Oweek. David Ssedyabule                – Lumaama, Kabula
43.    Owek. Ananius Ssekyanzi          – Katikkiro wa Kamuswaga,  Kooki
44.    Oweek. Ssalongo Peter Ddungu        – Muteesa, Mawogola
45.    Oweek. Stephen Kifulukwa Nawuba        – Kayima, Mawokota
46.    Alex Benjamin Kigongo            – Ssekiboobo, Kyaggwe
47.    Oweek. Prof. Peter M. Mutebi        – Kweba, Ssese
48.    Oweek. Salongo Godfrey Mbalire        – Mukwenda, Singo
49.    Oweek. Twaha Lwanyaaga            – Katambala, Butambala
50.    Oweek. Gidion Kisitu                – Kangawo, Bulemezi
51.    Oweek. Ssalongo S. Ssenyonga        – Kimbugwe, Bululi

KABAKA’S REPRESENTATIVES

52.    Oweek. Prof. Eric Paul Kibuka        – Member of the Lukiiko
53.    Oweek. Dr. Jack Luyombya            –       “
54.    Oweek. Robert Kalundi Serumaga        –        “
55.    Oweek. Dr. Golooba Mutebi            –        “
56.    Oweek. Victoria Nabayinda Serunjogi    –        “
57.    Oweek. Mukasa Muleme            –        “
58.    Oweek. Rehema Kasule Nakawooya        –        “
59.    Oweek. Damas Mulagwe            –        “
60.    Oweek. Dr. Charles Zziwa            –        “
61.    Owek. Umar K. Mayanja            –        “

REPRESENTATIVES FROM COUNTIES

62.    Oweek. Edward Kamya Lugonvu                – Kyaddondo
63.    Oweek. Kibirige Nakubulwa Zulayika            – Kyaddondo
64.    Oweek. Charles Bwenvu                    – Kyaddondo
65.    Oweek. Christine Kasule Mugerwa                – Kyaddondo
66.    Oweek. Kironde Kisuule Geoffrey                – Kyaddondo
67.    Oweek. Kato Kabugo Samson                 – Kyaddondo

68.    Oweek. Haji Abibu Kizito                    – Kyaggwe
69.    Oweek. Donald Muguluma Damulira                – Kyaggwe
70.    Oweek. Haji Kaweesi Kibiriti Abdallazziz            – Kyaggwe
71.    Oweek. Nalwanga Grace Wandyaka                – Kyaggwe
72.    Oweek. Nalubwama Barbra                     – Kyaggwe
73.    Oweek. Patrick Kisitu                        – Kyaggwe

74.    Oweek. Nabwami Sofia                    – Bulemeezi
75.    Oweek. Dr. Josephat Jombwe                 – Bulemeezi
76.    Oweek. Kasimu Hassam                    – Bulemeezi
77.    Oweek. James Mabaale                    – Bulemeezi
78.    Oweek. Noel Nabweteme                    – Bulemeezi
79.    Oweek. Erasto Kibirango                    – Bulemeezi

80.    Oweek. Ismail Mulema                    – Kooki
81.    Oweek. Semu Kulubya                    – Kooki
82.    Oweek Ddungu Ssemuto                    – Kooki

83.    Oweek. Hajati Fatuma Namugula                – Mawogola
84.    Oweek. Wamala Samu                    – Mawogola
85.    Oweek. Ssesanga Magala Peter                – Mawogola

86.    Oweek. Joseph Balikuddembe                – Buddu
87.    Oweek. Mugumbya G. Ssenyonga                – Buddu
88.    Oweek. Samuel P. Kayiwa                    – Buddu
89.    Oweek Henry Wasswa Mukasa                – Buddu
90.    Oweek. Babirye Mary Kabanda                – Buddu
91.    Oweek. Ronald Mugamba                    – Buddu

92.    Oweek. Ssemwogerere Deo Mutyaba                – Buwekula
93.    Oweek. Kiwanuka Harriet Nampala                – Buwekula
94.    Oweek. Matovu Ndawula Erisa                – Buwekula
95.    Oweek. Gyaviira Kasajja                    – Buwekula

96.    Oweek. Kijjambu H.R Stanley                 – Ssingo
97.    Oweek. Matovu Noah                        – Ssingo
98.    Oweek. Zziwa Kimogofu                    – Ssingo
99.    Oweek. Nantume Poline                    – Ssingo
100.    Oweek. Lubega Godfrey                – Ssingo
101.    Oweek. Wasswa Katende Kezekia              – Ssingo

102.    Oweek. Ssonko Margret                 – Bugerere
103.    Oweek. Ssekimuli Swaib                – Bugerere
104.    Oweek. Kawuma Nuwah                – Bugerere
105.    Oweek. Walugendo Charles                – Bugerere
106.    Oweek. Robina Magezi                – Bugerere
107.    Oweek. Schofield.D.B Ssekubwa            – Bugerere

108.    Oweek. Ssetenda Ssenoga Livingstone        – Gomba
109.    Oweek. Namale Amina                – Gomba
110.    Oweek. Muwanga Kaggwa Amos            – Gomba
111.    Oweek. Namuddu Rehema. Ssekabira        – Gomba

112.    Oweek Mugenyi Alex Salongo            – Buvuma
113.    Oweek. Kitayimbwa Fred                – Buvuma
114.    Oweek. Namugabo Federesi Sekindi            – Buvuma

115.    Oweek. Ssebwato Godfrey Ssebanakita        – Buluuli
116.    Oweek. Wanzala Livingstone                – Buluuli
117.    Oweek. Nambi Nambooze Ruth            – Buluuli
118.    Oweek. Ssemwanga Fred                – Buluuli

119.    Oweek. Naggayi Annet                – Busiro
120.    Oweek. Musisi Kabuye Fredrick            – Busiro
121.    Oweek. George Geserwa                – Busiro
122.    Oweek. Kiberu Kisiriiza Charles            -Busiro
123.    Oweek. Suzan Namutebi Musoke            – Busiro
124.    Oweek. Kalule Ssewaali John                – Busiro

125.    Oweek. Nyika Mutooto Victor            – Busujju
126.    Oweek. Kikomeko Nakate C. Birabwa        – Busujju
127.    Oweek Jjingo Mark Byekwaso            – Busujju

128.    Oweek Ssalongo Lutaaya G. W            – Ssese
129.    Oweek. Nakyeyune Glades                 – Ssese
130.    Oweek. Kasirye Augustine                 – Ssese

131.    Oweek. Ssekyeru David                – Mawokota
132.    Oweek. Juma Bbosa                    – Mawokota
133.    Oweek. Nalongo Jane Florence Kiwalago        – Mawokota
134.    Oweek. Dr. Martin Nsubuga                -Mawokota

135.    Oweek. Nanyonjo Jaliya Sseguya            – Butambala
136.    Oweek. Najib Kivumbi                – Butambala
137.    Oweek. Ssepuuya Steven                – Butambala
138.    Oweek. Nabwami Aisha Sserunjogi            – Butambala

139.    Oweek. Matovu Sarah Nakalembe            – Kabula
140.    Oweek. Hajjat Nassimbwa Nsereko            – Kabula
141.    Oweek. Ssenkima Stephen                – Kabula
142.    Oweek. Kamunana Emmanuel            – Kabula

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE YOUTH

143.    Oweek. Mitimbo Gonzaga Kagumba        – Nkobazambogo
144.    Oweek. Elijah Kyobe                – Nkobazambogo
145.    Oweek. Kiyemba Hassan            – Nkobazambogo
146.    Oweek. Mazzi Sylvia                – Nkobazambogo
147.    Oweek. Nalweyiso Hasifah             – Nkobazambogo

148.    Oweek. Joseph Kawuki            – Buganda Youth Council
149.    Oweek. Ssabavuma Christopher        – Buganda Youth Council
150.    Oweek. Ismail Kintu                – Buganda Youth Council
151.    Oweek. Henry Kasacca Mubiru        – Buganda Youth Council
152.    Oweek. Mulindwa Michael Nakumusana    – Buganda Youth Council
153.    Oweek. Sylvia Kirabira G            – Buganda Youth Council
154.    Oweek. Christine Nabukenya            – Buganda Youth Council

155.    Oweek. Mulwana Kizito Andrew        – Ssuubi Lya Buganda
156.    Oweek. Balikuddembe J. Senkusu        – Ssuubi Lya Buganda
157.    Oweek. Isaac Mpanga                – Ssuubi Lya Buganda
158.    Owek. Prosperous Nankindu Kavuma    – Ssuubi Lya Buganda
159.    Oweek. Henry Ssekabembe            – Ssuubi Lya Buganda
160.    Oweek. Isa K. Mayanja            – Ssuubi Lya Buganda

REPRESENTATIVES OF VARIOUS CATEGORIES (Professionals)

161.    Oweek. Henry Kanyike            – Livestock
162.    Oweek. Prof. Badru Kateregga         – Education
163.    Oweek. Enock Kato                – Farmers
164.    Oweek Younus Kamulegeya            – Consult-Eng
165.    Oweek. Edward Nkuggwa            – Accountants.
166.    Oweek. John Sebaana Kizito            – Bika Football Committee.
167.    Owek. Kassim Yawe Musoke            – People with Disabilities.
168.    Oweek. Nantumbwe Rose            – The Luganda Language
169.    Owek. Robert Nviiri            – Ekibiina ky’Olulimi Oluganda
170.    Oweek. Chris Bwanika            – Bannamateeka
171.    Oweek. Haji Midirikati Mukasa        – Employees
172.    Oweek. Hajji Jamada Lutta Musoke        – Employers
173.    Oweek. Hasipha Nampeewo Mpagi        – Women
174.    Oweek. Solome Walusimbi Mpanga        – Women
175.    Oweek. Joyce Mpanga            – Women
176.    Oweek. Agnes Nabulya  Nkuggwa        – Women
177.    Oweek. Ibrahim Suguya    – The Lukiiko Nom. Committee.
178.    Oweek. Dr. Kiwanuka     Ben Mukwaya    – Medical Workers
179.    Oweek. Edward Kayondo                “
180.    Oweek. Gasta Lule- Ntake             – Business Community
181.    Oweek Mukasa Ssalongo James        – Business Community
182.    Oweek. Noah Kiyimba            – Tertiary Institution
183.    Oweek. Prof. Livingstone Walusimbi        – Elders
184.    Oweek. Mohamood Ssebagala        – Elders

REPRESENTATIVES FROM OUTSIDE BUGANDA

185.    Oweek. Kizito Peter Mufumba    – Abaganda ababeera e Busoga
186.    Oweek. Kato Hussein Galiwango    -Abaganda ababeera e Bugisu
187.    Oweek. Ssenkumba M. Joseph    – Abaganda ababeera Samia/ Bugwe
188.    Oweek. Suleiman Ibrahim Kiggundu    – Abaganda ababeera mu East  Africa.

REPRESENTATIVES OF COMMUNITIES IN BUGANDA

189.    Oweek. Wahibu Doka                – Mukiise
190.    Oweek. Bakhit Juma Hassan (0753 968015)    -Mukiise
191.    Oweek. Manu Kanani                – Mukiise (0712777700)

CLERK

192.    Omukungu David Ntege

Thank you everyone and good luck to the new Lukiiko members because they are going to need it under the circumstances.

Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba

UAH CHIEF MODERATOR

Help Kabaka Get the Right Choice. Vote For Your Katikiro Now

Standard

Dear Ugandans,

April 2011 is when the four year term for current Buganda kingdom Katikkiro, JB Walusimbi, expires. According to the Redpepper(2010),’‘Katikkiro JB Walusimbi recently met the Kabaka and communicated his unwillingness to go for a second term. This, the Katikkiro maintains, is consistent with his inauguration speech of 2007 when he assured the Kabaka that he would do just one term.
Having served at Mengo for a very long time (he was finance minister for a very long time including during Joseph Mulwanyammuli’s reign), Walusimbi has naturally generated fatigue and wants to retire to private life and redeem his businesses some of which have been affected by his busy schedule while serving at Mengo since the 1990s.However, palace insiders tell us the Kabaka didn’t want to renew Walusimbi’s contract because of his soft approach to the Buganda issues, thus his shopping for a radical and anti Museveni prime minister.

So who do you want to be your next Katikkiro? Any Ideas?

 

Ssabanyala and Ssabaruli are just Politcal Titles that can be taken away any time

Standard

Dear Ugandans,

UNDER 1962 INDEPENDENCE CONSTITUION, THE HEAD OF STATE OF UGANDA WAS THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND WHO WOULD BE REPRESENTED BY A GOVERNOLR GENERAL. The First Constitutional Amendment 1963, created a position of President and Vice President to be elected by parliament. Candidates were to be traditional rulers. In non kingdom areas, a position of constitutional head was created like the Rutakirwea of Kigezi. These are now catered for under a regional Government arrangement as entrenched in 1995 constitution as amended in 2005 constitution.

These rulers can’t be presidents and vice presidents again like it was the case in 1963 because they are barred from partisan politics. But they can titular heads of regional governments. Unfortunately some opportunists at mmengo rejected such a wonderful deal, which was agreed upon by the President, the Kabaka, the Katikkiro, Mulwanyammuli then, John Katende, Charles Peter Mayigha, Apolllo makubuya, Grace Ndugwa, among others. Traditional/ cultural leaders are only barred from partisan politics but not politics for man is a political animal.

l am a journalist and my area of specialization is politics. l covered and followed well Government Mmengo talks. The formal ones were with Katikkiro and his team and Mbabazi-Rugunda team. Occasionally the President and the Kabaka could intervene. Later the Kabaka was personally represented by Prince David Kintu Wassajja. Another informal team of Haji Abdu Nadduli, omutaka Nadduli Kibaale, Prince Kitayimbwa Mumiransanafu the late Bishop Yokana Mukasa, also intervened. Museveni had a three day meeting with Haji Nadduli in Karamoja in 2004, as there was no head way between Mulwanyammuli and Mbabazi-Rugunda.

The final deal was endorsed by Lukiiko. But when Mulwanyammuli was forced to resign, the Lukiiko undid what it had done. Among those in the talks and are still at Mmengo include Apolo Makubuya and Charles Peter Mayiga. Joseph Mulwanyammuli may be seen as a hypocrite, but am sympathetic to him for he was betrayed by both Mmengo and the centre.

The traditional leader of Bugerere was Namuyonjo, who was also deposed by Kabaleega in his wars. But later Sir Edward Muteesa ll restored him and gave him a Mailo Estate at Galiraaya in present Baale County. But the political/administrative leader was a saza chief.

The problem however is that ever since kingdoms were restored in 1993, Mmengo has not installed a Nang’oma or a Namuyonjo. Neither has it allowed the Kabaka’s subjects in Buluuli and Bugerere, to elect their won representatives to Buganda Lukiiko. Then name calling of who is more muganda than another started by frustrated politicians, and the climax was the last September riots.

Take an example of my home Mawogola County or Ssembabule District. The traditional leader was Chief Muntu Njovu, the last signatory on Buganda Agreement of 1900. He got two Mailo land estates at Bulera, which is his official estate, and Kyebando, which is private. His relatives and subjects, including grandfather of CMI Brig. James Mugira, also got Mailo estates. But the political/administrative leader was a saza chief.

The Bamooli, the Muntu’s ruling clan and Bannabwera, his subjects seek restoration of that cultural autonomy, but mmengo is adamant.

Most Baluuli and Banyara are Baganda with an exception of a few political agitators. One of Buganda’s famous Prime ministers, Nsibirwa (in whose name is now a hall at Makerere University), was a Munyala. In Buluuli, immigrants including Baganda,  Banyankore and Banyarwanda when team up with moderate Baluuli, hardliners like Hon. Muluuli Mukasa,, former security minister, become a minority. In Bugerere, Banyala though natives, are less than 10 percent, and the majority are Baganda.

The provision which was in the First Amendment of 1962 Independence Constitution (1963) applied for non kingdom areas and the kingdoms of Buganda, Bunyoro, Tooro and the Territory of Busoga were exceptional. It was smuggled out of the bill according to the president and cabinet.

Ahmed Katerega

UAH forumist

Why the Obugabe Issue Has Remained Contraversial in Ankole

Standard

Dear Ugandans,

I think the little I know of the Obugabe and the reason why it has taken so long to come to them is because of that drum.You see the Basiita are the rightful owners of the drum. The Basiita are now according to Ankore gossip the lowest rank civil servant in the Obugabe. They are the ones who “beat” the drum. The Bahinda are the clan that holds the Obugabe (drum). I have never quite understood it but being married to a half Buhinda I get to hear all sorts of explanations.

Ruhinda the founder of the Ankore dynasty was an immigrant Muchwezi who came to Ankore when there was drought with his cows which he used to get dominion over the people of Nkore. He is alleged to have come from Karagwe, Tanzania, but before that his ancestors came from Abyssinia. This is why the Bahinda of today like to talk about Ethiopic roots.

Anyway, during the draught, the original kings the Basiita needed food and so they gave their drum in exchange. In that whole region there was something spiritual about the drum. It was a symbol of authority. I have heard it in Kigezi also. When I find a Munyakigezi who is annoyed with President Museveni for example, they are always quick to remind me that,..”Omwijjuse, neite twamutaire ha ngoma” (remind him, it is us who put him on the drum). That was the comment I heard a lot after the bafuruki drama.

The Bahinda complain that they have not got their drum back because Museveni a Musiita says it belonged to his clan first and also they believe that he conceives the drum as the Presidency so to ask for the drum back is to attempt to dethrone him. I personally don’t believe he is this petty, but you can’t stop people from believing what they want.

This is the view I have found most commonly expressed among a cross section of bahinda who I have asked about the their clan issues. The problem with these rulers (Bahinda) was that they were very brutal and segregative. Even Among the Bahima, they had “levels”. I found it very interesting that the Omugabe chose to describe himself as a Muhima, Mwiru, Muhororo in this 1993 extract (below) from the hansard of Parliament considering that they were only allowed to marry among themselves.

For us Bakiga, we know the Bahororo as usurpers/bafuruki. The Kingdom was founded by Muhumuza who was the mother of Rwabugiri the most brutal king of Rwanda who took all land from Bakiga that was Busigi, Byumba and Ruhengere (Banyarwanda call it Ruhengeri now). She claimed she was a priestess of Nyabiinghi a kikiga deity. So when Aisha enters this territory, she is touching on very raw nerves.

We grew up on stories of all Bakiga ancestors around Rukiga, Ndorwa, Byumba and Ruhengere being subjected to mass murder and stealing of their land when the Belgians controlled the area and before the British annexed Kabale and Kisoro from those brutish Belgians and the word Bafuruki was derogatory to us. The Bairu also have similar stories from Obugabe days so Mao needs to go easy,  even the Omugabe is trying to persuade people that they are only interested in restoration to preserve the “good bits” of culture so if Prince Barigye is moving cautiously, then maybe Mao should too.

All Bahororo I have met say they come from this Muhumuza woman so how recent then is this Mpororo? I tell you I have googled, read and can’t seem to find any sense in this Mpororo stuff. It seems to me like total hogwash and desire by some people to have “blue blood”. Rwabugiri was the King of Rwanda during the 1890’s so considering she is his mother must be older than that (1850) yet when you read this Mpororo kingdom, it seems like they have been there for years. I think this recent Muhumuza was an imitator a fraud.
It is possible Rwanda’s former president,Habyarimana, was a Mukiga but I have no idea. I do know that some elements still among the Tutsi and Hima still consider the Bakiga as inferior to them. I have been called sub human to my face by seemingly intelligent bahima and when I ask how such people got such ideas, I am told that all Bakiga and Bahutu are the same and we are sub-human.
This debate about kings does not go down well for us bakiga. My grandfather told me stories of how bakiga were being killed left right and center before the British Annexed Kabale, Kisoro. The bakiga called coffee “kiboko” and that is because they were beaten endlessly to produce coffee for the belgians.
I think our boundaries that split is into two and had Kabala and Kisoro join Uganda in the early 1910’s started to be defined after the Ankole agreement of 1901. Before that we were at the mercy of Rwabugiri who was a usurper. It is said that the first “King” who unified bakiga through bloodbrotherhood, Kigeri Ndori crossed from Ndorwa and was a son of Mumbogo. Most call him Kashyiga or Kakiga.  He made a blood pact with the Basigi of Busigi which is east of Byumba by eating a bloodied coffee bean. That time the Bafundi bakiga of Rubanda were warring with Ndorwa and vice versa, This Kigeri married a tutsi woman who’s son eventually overthrew them by instating her son and insisting on only pure blood from her line marries the kings. He should not be confused with Ruganzu Ndori the magician. For us who come from Ndorwa, we know one leader and that is Ndori. The next time anyone in his line ruled over Rwanda was Kigeri Ndabarasa.

 There were always two families struggling for power and the Batutsi tried to change history by erasing him and rewriting it totally. Only Vansina has tried to get to some truth but even then, it is not clear. The elders in Kamuganguzi have the best story. I think that those Tutsi monarchists and supporters are afraid of Bakiga because they stole our land and our heritage and Habyarimana had those kikiga beliefs like the belief in Nyabiinghi so maybe they confused him. But if you read history, then Gihanga is the father of Gahutu and Gatutsi so they are all one. And Gihanga come from Kigwa “The fallen Son of God” who came to earth and married Nyampundu. So all of them if you follow etymology of words are Bakigwa or Bakiga.
You know even before the genocide, Bakiga in Kabale used to listen to Radio Mill Colline and I recall my grandpa in Kihihi, Kanungu, he had already moved but he liked to hear news brought by the banyakabale visitors of Kamuganguzi. He warned that genocide was coming, not because the Bahutu were bad, but he heard how everyone was trying to re-write history.
I do not want to seem like a sadist but the little that I grew up hearing, the use of the machete was King Rwabugiri’s hallmark. A Tutsi, not Habyarimana the Mukiga/Muhutu but Rwabugiri the Mututsi with the help of the Belgians. Habyarimana who felt threatened by the tutsi invasion, decided to appeal to those buried sentiments and most people who picked up those panga’s did so because they were fed with endless stories reminding them of Rwabugiri’s brutality. Now, I am sorry but I see Kagame trying to hide that history as though it will save him. It can’t and Kagame himself is paranoid about those ancient rituals explains his desire to find the Kalinga (the mythical drum) that got “lost” in Ndorwa (Uganda).
DP’s Mao wants to bring back the Obugabe, did he read what Mushega said about the naming of Igara county? It was the place where the kings cut out the eyes of the people. This kind of brutal stories have been passed down from one generation to the next. I support cultural institutions but sometimes I feel they are so vulnerable that someone can use them to start a genocide to serve their own political interests.
When those Banyarwanda were dismissing Habyarimana as a Mukiga/Muhutu/sub human, did you take a good look at their facial expressions? Read their expressions next time and judge if any sense will come out of ethnic debates.

Nina Mbabazi

UAH forumist

Museveni could easily become the first hereditary Muhororo king of Uganda

Standard

A forecaster is a person who, using available information, estimates, calculates or predicts in advance what will happen in future. Based on information at hand, it is possible to foretell that Museveni plans to become the first hereditary king of Uganda kingdom. What are the ingredients for this prediction?

1. It is not a secret any longer that Museveni entertains the notion of creating a Tutsi Empire with himself as the first Emperor. Museveni believes very strongly in using military might to realize what he wants. Other strategies are supplementary. And that is why democracy in Uganda is conducted at gun point. There is sufficient information about Museveni’s military/political intervention in Burundi, Rwanda and DRC as preparation for Tutsi Empire. If Mugabe had not intervened in DRC war, Museveni would probably have realized his dream. As is now known Mugabe entered the war principally to stop Museveni from creating a Tutsi Empire in Middle Africa (J. N. Weatherby 2003). Besides military intervention, Museveni is indirectly pushing Tutsi Empire through the East African economic integration and political federation. Museveni has even talked about a federation larger than the Great Lakes one. On April 4, 1997, it is reported that Museveni stated “My mission is to see that Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire [DRC] become federal states under one nation [and one leader]” (EIR Special Report 1997). Thus, Uganda kingdom is an integral part of this scheme. The following steps have been or are being taken to create Uganda kingdom.

2. When Bahima and Bahororo (Batutsi from Rwanda) minority (so-called pastoralists) were in full control of political and military operations in southwest Uganda (Ankole and Rujumbura county of Rukungiri district) in pre-colonial and colonial days, intermarriage between them and Bairu (slaves or so-called agriculturalists) was forbidden. Bairu were condemned to slaving for the comfort of their masters. In such circumstances it would not have made sense to encourage intermarriage between masters and slaves. Occasionally the king of Ankole would give a Muhima woman to an outstanding Muiru (singular for Bairu) soldier to marry and incorporate him into his group thereby depriving Bairu of a strong military leader.

3. The arrival of independence in 1962 based on majority rule changed the equation. The majority Bairu through one person one vote changed previous arrangements and became bosses at the district and national levels. To undo this development and bring Bahima and Bahororo minority back to dominant position, restrictions on intermarriage were withdrawn overnight. Bahima and Bahororo women (excluding those from royal families) were encouraged to marry en masse wealthy and/or educated Bairu who in turn would be naturalized Bahima or Bahororo and forsake their ancestral roots. They would thereafter be champions in promoting and defending Bahima and Bahororo interests. Meanwhile Bahima and Bahororo men continued to marry Bahima and Bahororo women only to avoid being penetrated by Bairu women so that their secrets about dominating others are not revealed.

4. Since Bahororo and Bahima came to power in 1986, Bahororo and Bahima women mostly from lower social classes are marrying Uganda men in large numbers and naturalizing or integrating them into Bahima/Bahororo culture like they have done with Bairu of southwest Uganda. Thus, the numbers of Bahororo/Bahima and in-laws of influential people have steadily increased in all parts of Uganda. A group of Bahororo women called Bashambokazi Kumanyana (to know one another) has been formed and one of the principal objectives is to arrange for Bahima and Bahororo women to marry men outside their Nilotic ethnic group and boost the number of political supporters of Bahororo. Please note that Bahima and Bahororo men continue to resist marrying women outside their Nilotic ethnic group. Increased intermarriages would be easy to deduce from marriage statistics but the files have disappeared.

5. Since the social revolution of 1959 in Rwanda, Uganda has attracted many Batutsi refugees (cousins of Bahima and Bahororo) many of whom have stayed and are playing crucial and strategic roles in Museveni’s government. Batutsi women like their Bahororo and Bahima cousins are encouraged to marry men outside their Nilotic ethnic group. There are stories of Batutsi men (and Bahima and Bahororo) forcing their daughters to marry at tender ages. These intermarriages are political although falsely presented by Kesaasi and others as the result of love between two consenting individuals. With recent disappearance of files on immigration, it is going to be difficult to determine how many Tutsis are in Uganda and marrying outside their ethnic group. It is therefore important that the government must be pressured to get all the missing files (on immigrants and vital registration) back intact because those who ‘stole’ them are known.

6. Article 37 of 1995 Uganda constitution states in part that every person has the right to promote any culture, cultural institution and tradition. This culture and institution could be at a community, district or national level! It is possible that a person or group of persons could propose that Uganda becomes a kingdom in order to unify the country under one king instead of a proliferation of kings that constrain the achievement of national unity project. What is happening in Uganda right now that began as demand for cultural institutions and leaders has turned out to be a demand for creating kingdoms and installing kings. Demands are coming in from all parts of Uganda presumably with tacit encouragement of the government. There are reports that Bakiga are now demanding a cultural institution and leader. This is laying the groundwork for eventual demand for a kingdom at the national level once a critical mass of demands has been secured. It is possible! What is needed is a mechanism to put the idea of Uganda kingdom into effect. That mechanism could be parliament. Parliament can change the constitution and declare Uganda a kingdom. Remember not too long ago Uganda parliament changed the constitution by removing presidential term limits. When the idea was first floated, many Ugandans thought that that was the dream of a lunatic and brushed it aside, arguing that Ugandans would not accept that. Now we have a constitution without presidential term limits!

7. What Museveni needs is to have in the next parliament at least two-thirds of NRM unwavering supporters to introduce a bill calling for making Uganda a kingdom and Museveni the first hereditary Muhororo king. And the game will be over. The media will say all it wants until it gets tired or if riots break out, Museveni has taken care of that in advance. With security forces at his disposal, he will crush any protest. With the Supreme Court in his pocket, the decision of parliament will be confirmed.

8. To keep international criticism at bay, Museveni has collaborated with strategic western powers in Great Lakes geopolitics, structural adjustment and anti-terrorism crusade. Do you now see how strategic Museveni is!

9. Should the Tutsi Empire come to fruition or the East African Federation be realized while Museveni is king of Uganda, he will move on to a larger institution and appoint his brother, son or daughter to succeed him as king or queen of Uganda.

10. That is why 2011 elections have become crucial. NRM candidates were selected carefully causing chaos because the non-trusted candidates were rigged out of the primaries. To prevent the creation of Uganda kingdom, voters must deny Museveni two-thirds of NRM members of parliament. The choice is yours.

11. When you fail to act and Uganda becomes a kingdom with Museveni as the first hereditary Muhororo king, do not shed crocodile tears that you did not know. Now you know!

Eric Kashambuzi

Museveni did not read history lessons properly

Standard

Eric Kashambuzi

Museveni claims to have studied history. It is not clear which branch of history he studied. Did he study revolutionary; military; diplomatic; colonial; negotiations; medieval; modern or all the branches of history? Whichever branch he studied, Museveni’s behavior demonstrates that he learned wrong lessons and that is why he has ended up described as a dictator presiding over a failed state.

Museveni believes very strongly that when you are militarily strong and you are feared (that is why he wears military uniform when there is a domestic challenge), then you can crush all your enemies (Museveni sees dissent in enemy, not opponent terms) with impunity. That is why he devoted his early life undergoing military training. As president, his number one priority has been building strong security forces to intimidate and when necessary crush political dissent. The defense budget has therefore been disproportionately larger than any other sector. Consequently infrastructural, social and environmental sectors have been starved of resources and are on the verge of collapse (potholes in Kampala City are an obvious case) – an outcome that may end his presidency.

History shows that military strength alone is not enough to defeat a determined people. The Portuguese government refused to negotiate with African liberation forces believing that military victory was the only choice. In the end the government itself was overthrown and Portugal defeated and all Portuguese fled their former African colonies in utter humiliation. On the other hand, visionary de Clerk, prime minister of apartheid South Africa, read the signs correctly and concluded that military victory was impossible. He entered into genuine negotiations with Nelson Mandela and a win-win agreement was struck (unlike the fake Okello/Museveni Nairobi negotiations). White South Africans who chose to stay have accepted Africans as equals and not creatures to slave for the Master Race.

If Museveni does not draw a lesson from the experience of Mandela and de Clerk that military strength has drawbacks and begins to negotiate with opponents or to give them space to participate in the political processes as equals, there are going to be serious problems. Instead, Museveni is still investing in weapons of human destruction (WHD) rather than creating conditions for dialogue with all stake holders.

Museveni believes that once you have solid foreign support, you cannot be defeated at home. Accordingly, in trying to get Britain’s support, Museveni accepted a harsh version of structural adjustment (shock therapy) because it was favored by conservative western leaders particularly Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom. Museveni collaborated closely with Linda Chalker a trusted minister who preached Thatcher’s philosophy of economic liberalism including monetary economics focusing on inflation control (at the expense of employment) and privatization of public enterprises. Museveni embraced similar policies in the economic reform programs since 1987.

Regarding privatization, Uganda’s public assets were divested en masse without proper assessment of their value, which ones to be privatized, to be closed or to be retained because they were making profit or serve strategic national interests. Divestment began immediately a decision was taken with instructions that any problems should be addressed as they arise rather than delay divestments until all constraints had been studied and resolved. The assets were sold at throw away prices (we have never been informed how much revenue was raised and to what use it was put). Because there were no Ugandans with capital and skills to participate in the exercise, most Uganda assets are foreign-owned – severely undermining Uganda’s sovereignty. The few that were allocated to Ugandans connected with the first family have performed badly and are always applying for government bailout to avoid bankruptcy – the very reason privatization triumphed over nationalization.

Also, because Museveni needed continued Britain’s support (British media and financial interests supported his guerrilla war), he agreed to the return of all Asians if they wished to and repossession of their properties including possibly those that had been compensated. This decision was and still is very unpopular and contentious in Uganda.

While taking these unpopular decisions to please foreign powers, Museveni has failed to draw the right lessons from the experiences of Haile Selassie of Ethiopia and Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire/DRC. These two African leaders had solid support of western powers. Nobody would have thought that they would be abandoned for any reason. However, when the west realized that the two leaders had become very unpopular in their respective countries it chose the people over the leaders. Haile SeIassie was in the end judged by western powers as a flawed leader with an autocratic style of leadership and abandoned. Similarly Mobutu was judged kleptocratic leader and advised to step down. When he refused, he was thrown out by Kagame and Museveni troops. The same thing could happen to Museveni if he continues along the current unpopular trajectory.

Museveni has not yet drawn a lesson about the power of images (photographs) in eroding the credibility of leaders. During the 1973/74 devastating famine in Ethiopia, the world watched images of starving women and children while Ethiopia was exporting food to earn foreign currency to cater to the needs of the rich, and Haile Selaisse was photographed feeding large chunks of beef to his lions in the palace compound. Without question, these images enhanced the Emperor’s removal from power.

The images of starving mothers and children when Uganda is exporting huge amounts of food to neighboring countries and beyond to earn foreign currency to satisfy the needs of the rich; pictures of Ugandans disfigured by jiggers because of absolute poverty; pictures of Kampala under floods because drainage channels have been blocked by unplanned buildings; pictures of overturned vehicles and dead passengers because of poor road maintenance and images of Museveni boarding an $80 million presidential jet in a third world, least developed and landlocked country that depends on foreign aid for survival have sent wrong messages about Museveni’s leadership and priority setting. Yet Museveni and his media staff continue to deny the adverse impact they are having on him.

Museveni believes that once you have crushed opposition parties and you have a firm control of your party then everything else will flow as planned. In this regard, Museveni has not learned from Margaret Thatcher’s experience. Thatcher believed that she had a comfortable handle on her conservative party and could initiate unpopular programs (e.g. poll tax) with impunity. She got a shock when members of her party forced her to step down through party elections.

Similarly, Museveni got a shock when disgruntled party members announced that because primary elections for 2011 general elections had been rigged, they were contesting as independent candidates. He advised them to drop the idea for party unity to no avail. If business continues as usual, Museveni could, one day, be forced to step down. It is possible because Ugandans are changing!

Museveni has not learned that ignoring or exploiting peasants can be politically costly. Peasants’ revolts contributed a major part in the collapse of feudalism in Europe. French peasants played a crucial role in the French Revolution. Uganda peasants are unhappy with Museveni policies. They see their children drop out of school in large part because government has refused to provide lunches and see their youth unemployed when youth from Museveni ethnic group with whom they studied are driving new vehicles. Independent candidates from Museveni’s party have seen this loophole and hope to exploit it and defeat Museveni’s preferred candidates. Thus, Uganda peasants, like peasants everywhere, can get cranky and cause trouble for Museveni when they feel their rights have been trampled too much.

Finally, Museveni did not draw a lesson regarding the impact of enlightenment thinkers on the American and French revolutions. European thinkers rejected divine right of kings and the dogma that some people were born to rule and others to slave in perpetuity. Museveni still believes in the divine right of presidents to give orders that must be followed at face value – without raising a finger in protest or to seek clarification. Museveni still believes that Bahororo are born natural leaders and will rule Uganda for ever possibly as a hereditary monarchy in spite of disastrous effects of his policies on the economy, ecology and society since 1986.

Museveni and his close tribal advisers still entertain the notion that any potential opponent should be liquidated. Museveni and those advising him need to understand that any person or relative murdered for his/her political views can only hasten his downfall. Uganda has entered the enlightenment phase and Ugandans have the right to reason and to ask questions and demand convincing answers – not to be dismissed as bankrupt, liars or empty and noisy tins!

Ugandans in urban and increasingly rural areas know their inalienable rights and no one can take them away without adverse consequences. The issue of land has demonstrated that even the illiterate cannot be swindled without nasty outcomes. If Uganda land is sold to foreign states or companies to grow food for their people while Ugandans starve, you can be sure Uganda peasants and urban elite will rebel (the case of Mabira forest is still fresh in our minds). As in European peasants’ revolts all that is needed is one or two bold leaders like Tyler to get the revolt rolling.

Generally, Ugandans are peace loving people who want to raise their families in peace and security and in harmony with their neighbors. Sadly, Uganda has had bad leaders who believe in the use of force rather than negotiations on a win-win basis. Impoverishing and humiliating opponents by depriving them of their property, culture (while Museveni is proud of his culture he is at the same time destroying the culture of others) and dignity by using military, intelligence and economic tools can only aggravate anger and speed up mobilization for resistance. Museveni expressed anger at Obote by waging a nasty guerrilla war on Buganda soil far away from his own. What makes Museveni think that others cannot react before they are completely destroyed? The armed forces he is proud of could turn against him especially by junior officers who have not enjoyed like the generals. Haile Selassie was picked up from his palace by junior officers he had dumped in a remote battalion in southern Ethiopia (we still remember Master Sergeant Samuel Doe of Liberia). Ugandans need not resort to force because there are better alternatives if all parties are ready to take that path. Let us hope that common sense and interest of present and future generations will prevail over Museveni’s personal and tribal interests.

Eric Kashambuzi

UAH forumist in NewYork

Museveni is turning Uganda into Bahororo dynasty

Standard

Museveni is a big dreamer and strategist. He has plans for Bahororo dynasty in Uganda as an integral part of Tutsi Empire in the Great Lakes Region. He is using a combination of military, political, economic and diplomatic weapons to realize his dreams. Ugandans should listen and watch carefully when Museveni talks or acts. He has a subtle way of sending messages. This article will focus on plans for declaring Bahororo dynasty in Uganda. For easy reference, let us review the history of former Mpororo kingdom as background information to Bahororo dynasty.

A group of Batutsi from Rwanda under the leadership of Kahaya Rutindangyenzi of Bashambo ruling clan founded Mpororo Kingdom around mid-1600s. The kingdom lasted less than 100 years because of serious internal problems. Although the exact boundaries are not known, it stretched from northern Rwanda to southwest Uganda largely in present-day Ntungamo district. When the kingdom disintegrated the portion in southwest Uganda was taken over by Bahima under Bahinda ruling clan. Bahororo who had been rulers over Bairu (slaves or commoners) became commoners themselves under Bahima kings.

Many Bahororo who were dissatisfied returned to Rwanda, others stayed (and chose to call themselves Bahima to avoid being classified and (mis)treated as commoners) or moved somewhere else. Ninety years or so after the kingdom had disintegrated a group of Bahororo under the leadership of Rwebiraro of Bashambo clan sought refuge in Rujumbura around 1800 and settled at Nyakinengo. Therefore Rujumbura was not a part of Mpororo kingdom.

Although Bahororo lost their kingdom and the name ‘Mpororo’ disappeared from maps of what later became Uganda, Bahororo tenaciously clung together (by marrying among themselves) wherever they lived – in Rwanda, Rujumbura, Ankole, Buganda or elsewhere and kept alive the dream of restoring Mpororo kingdom.

During negotiations for Uganda independence, Bahororo in Ankole demanded a separate district. They did not succeed but the idea did not die. Museveni who is a Muhororo was old enough and witnessed how Bahima of Ankole denied Bahororo a separate district (there are rumors – to be confirmed – that Ankole kingdom was not restored because of the unresolved Mpororo kingdom question).

Museveni has set himself the gigantic task of restoring and expanding Mpororo from southwest Uganda to the entire country. He is using inter alia the following methods in calculated and subtle manner.

First, Museveni has patiently with the help of historians and other professionals identified all Bahororo and their Bahima (including Oyima in Lango), Batutsi and Banyamulenge cousins in Uganda and beyond. Because they use different Uganda names and speak different Uganda languages, it is difficult to detect them. Museveni has therefore placed them in strategic positions in the army, police and intelligence, strategic ministries especially of finance and foreign affairs and in business. The oil sector is already in Museveni’s pocket. That is why it has become critically important to know who is who in Uganda to avoid the country being ‘high jacked’.

Second, by pushing economic integration and free mobility of East Africans, Museveni has made it relatively easy for Batutsi from Rwanda, Burundi and DRC to filter into Uganda to boost Bahororo numbers. For this reason Museveni favors a liberal immigration policy. That is why you see so many buses from Burundi and Rwanda ferrying Batutsi into Uganda. With poor records it is difficult to know how many of these Batutsi are staying in Uganda permanently. Should East African political federation become a reality, Uganda will be flooded with Batutsi and Banyamulenge who will occupy Uganda land and throw out indigenous owners – it is reported to be happening in Ntungamo district already.

The 1995 Uganda constitution that allows free mobility and settlement anywhere in the country was designed largely for this purpose but Ugandans did not and still do not understand this trick. Using immigration statistics, it would be possible to determine how many Batutsi and Banyamulenge have entered Uganda and how many have left. However, records on migration, births, deaths and marriages etc that would provide the information on migration have been stolen although those who stole them are known but have not yet been apprehended! That is why Ugandans must demand the return of those files intact.

Third, under normal circumstances, when refugees are given asylum they are kept and supported in camps until conditions improve in their home countries and they go back. In Uganda since 1959 when Batutsi refugees and their cattle entered Uganda, refugees are settled and by default (or with some help) many of them have become Uganda citizens. The Tutsi refugees were allowed to stay with relatives or move to other places where they were helped to acquire land. If you add on migrant workers you understand how Buganda ended up with 40 percent of Banyarwanda at the time of independence.

These haphazard settlements explain in large part problems in Sembabule, Rakai and Mawokota, Bunyoro and Ntungamo etc. In Kabale where the population density is high, accommodating Batutsi refugees since 1959 resulted in Bakiga being pushed out to other areas of Uganda. Thus, some people who pose as Bakiga from Kabale are actually Batutsi. Museveni knows them well and has used them effectively. The United Nations High Commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) that has responsibility for their wellbeing should provide information on all refugees in Uganda since 1959 to see how many have returned to their countries. This information would also be used to avoid future conflicts with indigenous people especially as political problems in the Horn of Africa, Kenya and DRC have pushed Somalis, Kenyans and Congolese into Uganda.

Fourth, wealthy or educated non-Bahororo, non-Batutsi and non-Bahima men are being encouraged – sometimes without them knowing it – to marry women from Bahororo and their cousins. Usually these are women from lower social classes (women from higher or royal classes marry men in their Nilotic ethnic group and would not be allowed to marry outside of that circle even if they wanted to). Once you marry into Bahororo family you become a Muhororo or you are ‘Tutsified’ and you join that culture and abandon your ancestral relatives. Therefore these are basically political marriages designed to weaken non-Bahororo Ugandans. There is a rumor (subject to confirmation) that Bashambo women have formed a club called Bashambokazi Kumanyana (to know one another) and one of the principal objectives is to marry Bahororo women to non-Bahororo wealthy and/or educated men.

Fifth, Museveni has made sure that children of Bahororo and their cousins get superb education at home and/or abroad while Uganda children languish in public schools that have been starved of funds and cannot even serve lunch to hungry children who are dropping out of school. Museveni has resisted suggestions to provide kids with lunch. Now you can understand why. This is not a matter that requires a study (as Museveni has directed) by the World Bank which is not entirely in favor of school lunches. The educated Bahororo in time will occupy all important positions in all areas of human endeavor and control semi-illiterate and unemployable Ugandans. Museveni is also not keen to provide relief to unemployed youth through public works initially as other governments have done because that is part of the plan – to marginalize and reduce them to politically and economically voicelessness and powerlessness.

Sixth, Museveni has accommodated foreigners by privatizing public assets (and increasingly allocating them land) and giving them freedom to make as much money as they are able to (including by underpaying Uganda workers through labor flexibility) in return for supporting him to stay in power as long as he wants. Museveni’s chosen successor would continue cozy relations with foreigners to consolidate Bahororo dynasty.

Seventh, Museveni who controls the judiciary and executive branches now wants the legislative branch of government as well. With three branches in his pocket the game will be over. For 2011 elections NRM flag bearers were carefully selected and that is why the NRM primaries were chaotic. The preferred candidates defeated those that do not fit Museveni’s scheme of capturing and controlling parliament. With at least two-thirds majority of solid supporters in parliament, Museveni will engineer revolutionary constitutional changes that may shock Ugandans.

If Ugandans have noticed, many groups are now demanding cultural leaders. The idea of cultural leaders is in the 1995 constitution. They could not use kings because that would have been too obvious. What is interesting is that groups are increasingly demanding and installing not cultural heads but kings. Have Ugandans noticed the shift from cultural leaders to kings? As more and more groups demand kings and kingdoms, Museveni may use this opportunity and argue that since the overwhelming groups want kings we might as well declare Uganda a kingdom. With at least two-thirds in parliament fully behind Museveni, Uganda could easily be declared a kingdom with Museveni as the first king. When this happens, it will be too late to change because Museveni will be in control of security forces, all branches of government and the business community. Since the decision will have been taken democratically, there is nothing the international community can do. Do not dismiss this observation out of hand. It is possible to declare Uganda a hereditary kingdom, entrenching Bahororo dynasty. The only chance Ugandans have is to defeat NRM in 2011. This matter should be taken seriously so that no one complains afterwards that if they had known they would have voted differently. Now you know!

Eric Kashambuzi

Working with UN in New York

Why Nilotic Bahororo and their cousins don’t marry Bantu women

Standard

Eric Kashambuzi

In the article on “Who are Bahororo?” it was mentioned that men do not marry Bantu women. Some readers have asked me to elaborate in order to understand why they don’t. Although Bahororo (Batutsi from Rwanda), Bahima and Batutsi cousins speak Bantu language, they are ethnically different from Bantu people, hence the use of Nilotic Bahororo and their cousins in the heading. At one time it was erroneously believed that Bahororo and their cousins were white people, but scientific studies have demonstrated conclusively and definitively that they are black people and darker with thicker lips than Bantu people – no disrespect is intended (J. D. Fage A History of Africa 1995 & Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa 1975). Although Bahororo and their cousins do not marry Bantu (Bairu and Bahutu) women they use them frequently for sexual pleasure and even produce children together. More references will be provided for those who would like to read more on the subject. Many quotations will also be used to avoid misinterpretation of authors’ messages.

According to John Hanning Speke (The Discovery of the Source of the Nile 1863, 2006) Bairu people (slaves) theoretically refers to all Bantu people south of the Nile. However, because of extensive intermarriage between Nilotic and Bantu people in Bunyoro, Buganda and Toro, entirely new communities were created and the ethnic distinction disappeared. This article will therefore refer to Bahororo, Bahima and Batutsi of southwest Uganda (Ankole and Rujumbura) and Rwanda and Burundi where Nilotic men do not marry Bahutu and Bairu women. It is important to add at this juncture that when wealthy and/or educated Bairu and Bahutu men marry Bahororo, Bahima and Batutsi women, they marry them mostly from relatively poor families. Thus, Bahororo, Bahima and Batutsi women from wealthy or royal families do not marry Bairu or Bahutu men reminiscent of medieval Europe where the nobility married among itself (John Merriman A History of Modern Europe 1996).

Although Bahororo and their cousins argue that they do not marry Bairu and Bahutu women because they are not pretty, historians and anthropologists and other commentators have given a different reason. One of them states that “… the Hima and Tutsi of the southwestern highland zone [southwest Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda] did not mix so freely. They avoided intermarriage and by keeping themselves distinct they managed, in time, to establish a position of domination over the majority peasants [Bairu and Bahutu] cultivators of the region” (Kevin Shillington History of Africa1989).

Another historian has written that “It was the political domination [of agriculturalists or Bairu and Bahutu] by the pastoralists [Bahororo and their cousins] that brought the two groups [pastoralists and agriculturalists] to live together” (Bethwell A. Ogot Economic and Social History of East Africa 1979). Thus they have avoided marrying Bairu and Bahutu women to keep their secrets about dominating Bahutu and Bairu people and other people in the great lakes region. Conversely, one can argue that Bahororo, Bahima and Batutsi women marry wealthy and/or educated Bairu and Bahutu men largely for political reasons – to get access to Bairu and Bahutu secrets about liberating themselves from Bahororo, Bahima and Batutsi domination.

Here is more information. According to Kinyarwanda law or culture “The punishment for rape depended on the social status of the person involved. Thus if a Hutu raped a Tutsi woman, he was put to death; if a Hutu woman was raped by a Tutsi, the matter would be settled by compensation” (James L. Gibbs Peoples of Africa 1965).

Regarding marriage and ownership of children, “The legality of a marriage depended on the handing over of a bride price by the groom’s father to the bride’s father. The mere performance of the marriage rites did not constitute a legal union. The transfer of bride wealth caused the husband … to acquire an exclusive right on his wife’s reproductive power so as to make him stand out as the legal father (pater) of all children born to the woman, either begotten by himself or by another man” ( James L. Gibbs Peoples of Africa 1965).

Another Kinyarwanda or more specifically Tutsi culture is that a woman is expected to remain virgin until she marries. Therefore “unmarried Tutsi boys would be ‘given’ Hutu girls, temporarily, for sexual purposes”. As noted above “Intermarriage occurred, but usually with successful Hutu men marrying Tutsi women. Tutsi men would take Hutu women as concubines, rather than marrying them” (Neil J. Kressel Mass Hate 2002).

In Ankole although intermarriage was prohibited, “Bairu concubines were especially common among Bahima chiefs and gave rise to a class of half-castes known as Abambari. From the point of view of legal status, the Abambari were classed as Bairu, but personal consideration often modified the strict rigor of the rule” (Ramkrishna Murkherjee Uganda: An Historical Accident? Class, Nation, State Formation 1985).

The analysis above has demonstrated clearly that contrary to popular belief, Bairu and Bahutu women are not ugly otherwise Bahororo, Batutsi and Bahima men including the chiefs (with unlimited access to Bahima, Bahororo and Batutsi women) would not have had sex with them frequently. It means they enjoyed their company and possibly still do! In other words, they do so because in their eyes Bairu and Bahutu women are pretty and that is why Bahororo, Batutsi and Bahima men had sex with them frequently. Those in doubt including Kesaasi take another close look (free of bias) and you will not fail to admire the beauty of Bairu and Bahutu women. Bahororo, Bahima and Batutsi men do not marry Bairu and Bahutu women not because they are ugly but if they married them their secrets about dominating other people in Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi or elsewhere would be exposed.

As we progress into the 21st century, let us hope that the premise of domination that has prevented Bahima, Bahororo and Batutsi from marrying outside their Nilotic ethnic group will become a thing of the past – and pretty soon. The world will be watching.

Eric Kashambuzi

UAH forumist in New York

Museveni has behaved like a colonizer of Uganda

Standard

What we are witnessing is that Ugandans have entered a new phase – a phase where they are asking questions and demanding convincing answers and analyzing issues dialectically to make the absent be the present because the greater part of the truth is in that which is absent, hence examining Museveni’s restoration and expansion of colonial policies.

When Museveni came to power in 1986, he preached what Ugandans wanted to hear – improve education and healthcare, balance production for domestic consumption and export, transform the economy from agriculture to industry and export manufactured products instead of raw materials etc). However, in practice, Museveni has behaved like a colonizer, making many people feel – rightly or wrongly – that he is Rwandese colonizing Uganda with connivance especially of Britain that has supported him even before he became president. Before comparing Museveni policies to those of the colonial regime, let us briefly examine what the British colonizers found at the time of colonization, how it was destroyed and replaced by colonial policies, what Obote and UPC did to undo colonial policies and then examine how Museveni has returned Uganda to the colonial period.

European travelers including Winston Churchill, explorers and missionaries admired what was happening in what later became Uganda. People were enjoying dynamic economies: growing a wide range of crops, livestock and manufacturing a wide range of products based on abundant raw materials. These products were supplemented by a wide range of wild game and fish, fruits and vegetables. Ugandans were dynamic and innovative and were described as the ‘Chinese’ and ‘Japanese’ of Africa. Overall, they ate adequate and balanced diets, enjoyed healthy lives and traded surplus in local and regional markets and accumulated wealth. Bunyoro, Buganda and Busoga were known for the fine quality of their manufactured products. Pre-colonial comparative advantage benefited everyone.

British colonizers came to Uganda in search of food to feed their exploding population, tropical raw materials for their manufacturing enterprises, markets for surplus manufactured products and home for surplus population. Consequently, Britain decided that Uganda would become a producer of raw materials and stop manufacturing enterprises because Britain had a comparative advantage. It decided that Buganda would be the center of export production of cotton and later coffee and other areas would be labor reserves to provide cheap labor to Buganda. White settlers came to Uganda and began plantation agriculture. However, the losses incurred during the economic recession in the early 1920s forced them to abandon agriculture and settlement altogether. After the construction of the Uganda railway, Britain allowed Asians to enter Uganda and dominate commercial and industrial sectors mainly connected with initial stages of agro-processing and manufacture of bulky products that would be expensive to import from Britain.

Law and order was the first priority of colonial administration and crushed any resistance – Bunyoro being the case in point. The best developed institutions were the police, prisons and the judiciary.

Uganda was reduced to producing industrial raw materials (cotton, coffee, tea and tobacco) and foodstuffs for export. These exports left little food of nutritional value and under-nutrition became a problem. Although colonialism ended famines, it introduced endemic hunger caused by eating unbalanced diets mostly of cassava, maize/corn and plantains.

Education was limited largely to primary and vocational training in the areas of carpentry, bricklaying, drivers, primary teachers and low level health workers. Skilled jobs were retained for British expatriates.

When UPC under Obote came to power in 1962, it reformed many colonial policies. Education was expanded to secondary level, hospitals and clinics were built in rural areas, industrial activity was promoted and food security and overall hygiene were improved. Nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy took place and Ugandanization proceeded pretty fast. Because Obote had reformed colonial policies, he was accused of being a ‘dangerous’ socialist working against capitalist interests. Britain played a big role in his overthrow in 1971, ushering in the ‘gentle giant’ named Amin. Contrary to popular belief, Obote was not overthrown by Amin and Ugandans. He was overthrown by western powers using Baganda agitation and desperate Amin as a cover (Amin was about to be arrested).

Notwithstanding Obote’s premature departure, he had accomplished a lot. According to the World Bank report (1993), Uganda’s social indicators improved considerably through low-cost health and nutritional programs. School enrollment improved and Uganda developed a reputation for ‘very high quality’ education. GDP growth averaged 6 percent per annum between 1963 and 1970. Uganda today (2010) has not reached the general standard of living enjoyed in 1970.

Obote II regime emphasized industrialization of Uganda’s economy. However, interruptions caused by western supported guerrilla war, structural adjustment and withdrawal of support by IMF and World Bank and western-engineered military coup in 1985 prevented the implementation of the program. The Obote II regime was overthrown because western powers were “interested in seeing another pliable government come to power in Uganda – strategically important because of its borders with Kenya, Sudan and Zaire” (Victoria Brittain 1988).

Then came Museveni in 1986 with a mixed economy agenda (ten-point program) which he quickly abandoned in favor of a colonial economy model in the form of structural adjustment. Museveni like the British in Uganda emphasized law and order and would not tolerate resistance to his rule, hence more than 20 years of destructive war in northern and eastern Uganda and penetration of the rest of Uganda by security agents. Like in colonial days, police, prisons and the judiciary have been developed to deal with criminal activities and attempts to destabilize the regime.

Museveni’s economic policy went back to Ricardian classical economics of static comparative advantage turning Uganda once again into a full blown producer of coffee, cotton, tea and tobacco. Museveni went further and added a new dimension of non-traditional exports (NTEs). Foodstuffs traditionally produced for domestic consumption like beans, maize/corn and fish have become export crops. Ugandans have been reduced to eating cassava, maize and plantains (like in colonial days) without adequate nutrient supplements. Like in colonial days under-nutrition has returned with a vengeance.

Through a policy of trade liberalization, Uganda’s manufacturing enterprises have been closed or driven out of the country and the remaining are operating far below installed capacity largely as a result of unfair competition by cheap imports especially used products like clothing. Cheap powdered milk has outcompeted fresh milk dealing a heavy blow to domestic milk production.

Uganda had attained a reputation for quality education in spite of the political economy difficulties between 1971 and 1985. On advice from foreign experts, Museveni, like the British colonial administration, decided to focus on primary education and devalued post primary education by imposing tuition fees and other charges beyond the reach of many students. Primary education has been poorly managed resulting in very high dropout rate. And most graduates are functionally illiterate and unemployable.

As in colonial days, Museveni decided to reserve skilled jobs to western experts particularly from Britain. The most important Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development and the Central Bank are staffed by western experts, advisers and supervisors (Sebastian Mallaby 2004). Qualified Ugandans are languishing at home or working outside. In an interview in 1993, Museveni stated categorically that he was not interested in the return of qualified and experienced Ugandans in the diaspora. He advised them to stay there, make money and send remittances home as their contribution to national reconstruction and development. He then recruited his guerrilla fighters most of them poorly trained and inexperienced. Filling strategic posts was based on loyalty rather than competence – hence medical doctors becoming minister of finance and marketing corporation. Museveni invited foreign experts to take up positions he could not fill with guerrilla fighters, thus restoring the colonial policy of expatriates occupying skilled jobs.

Not least, Museveni invited Asians back and returned their properties possibly including those that had been compensated, denationalized foreign enterprises and returned them to former foreign owners making Britain the largest investor in Uganda.

Ugandans can now see why Museveni still has the backing of western powers and corporations in spite of his poor performance and unpopularity among Ugandans. Museveni has been the champion of neo-colonialism based on market forces and laissez faire capitalism.

Western retention of Museveni in power will ensure the continuation of the neo-colonial trajectory – not the improvement in the standard of living of the majority of Ugandans. Thus, elections which western countries have insisted on are designed to hoodwink Ugandans. Should he become first president of the East African political federation, chances are that Museveni will extend neo-colonial policies to the entire great lakes region. Eat Africans beware of what you are getting into.

ERIC KASHAMBUZI

Museveni misled the people of Uganda

Standard

Senior Policy Advisor, United Nations Millennium Project

Many Ugandans have been disappointed by Museveni’s government in large part because they do not understand why he came to power. Museveni, like Mobutu and Amin before him, came to power at the height of Cold War confrontations between capitalism and socialism. The return of Obote as president in 1980 represented a return of socialism to Uganda which had been defeated in 1971 using Amin. Western powers and corporate interests were alarmed by the return of socialism to Uganda through the return of Obote as president after 1980 elections. Obote was still considered a socialist. Museveni, like Amin, was used by western capitalist forces to remove socialism by ousting its agent – President Obote. Since these western interests were not going to send European troops to the jungles of Luwero, Museverni appealed to disgruntled Ugandans especially Baganda and Catholics to join him in ousting Obote who had ‘stolen’ the 1980 elections although certified by the Commonwealth observer team that has certified Museveni’s victories since the 1996 elections.

Because of their deep resentment of Obote, Baganda who lost their kingdom and a referendum on ‘lost counties’ allowed Museveni to use their territory in the Luwero Triangle to wage a destructive guerrilla war against Obote and the UPC’s government. Catholics who had lost the 1980 elections also joined Museveni’s guerrilla forces. Both Baganda and Catholics did not bother to look beyond the ouster of Obote. To them that was it! Consequently, Baganda and Catholics and later Protestants and Muslims who also joined, did not understand that the guerrilla war was funded and directed to fight socialism and restore capitalism. Ugandans’ interests, if at all, were accidental.

When Museveni and NRM captured power, he introduced the ten-point program for the transformation of Uganda’s economy and society. But this was written to attract supporters to the guerrilla cause, not to be implemented after the war was over. The document was even finalized in Austria! We do not know what conditions were attached to it. What we know is that the document contained a mixed economy strategy for the implementation of the program. A mixed economy by definition has state involvement in the economy and to capitalists state participation means socialism. Western powers would not tolerate that. They refused to give Museveni financial and technical assistance until he had prepared an acceptable alternative through the IMF that met the conditions of western donors. This message was conveyed to Museveni by Linda Chalker, then minister in Thatcher government. Margaret Thatcher was determined to end socialism, reintroduce capitalism through the invisible hand of market forces and laissez faire capitalism. This is the message that Linda Chalker delivered to Museveni and ensured it was implemented.

The ten-point program was replaced by structural adjustment program (SAP) after signing the agreement with the IMF in 1987. Western interests in (SAP) contrasted with those of Ugandans as contained in the ten-point program that was abandoned. Institutional and staff changes were also made to accommodate SAP. The socialist-oriented Minister of Finance and Governor of the Central Bank were replaced by surrogates of Western interests. A new and powerful Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development was created and empowered to run Uganda’s economy along capitalist lines. The Central Bank which was controlled by IMF was made independent of Uganda government. It focused on the IMF‘s preferred inflation control at the expense of full employment.

One of the conditions of structural adjustment is that countries receiving Western aid “rely heavily on foreign experts to guide development and ensure efficient project selection” (John Brohman 1996). Consequently, Uganda’s economy was handed over to donors especially IMF and World Bank that designed policies and projects that catered for Western interests at the expense of Ugandans’. The Asians were invited back and regained their properties including possibly those that had been compensated and European companies regained their enterprises. British presence became visible. Linda Chalker became a close adviser to the president, Paul Collier was heavily involved in designing Uganda’s macroeconomic policy and William Pike managed the New Vision newspaper with the largest circulation in the country. Young British economists occupied strategic positions in the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development and directed Uganda’s economy (Sebastian Mallaby 2004) without adequate knowledge of Uganda’s history and culture.

A capitalist structural adjustment policy was prepared. It privatized Uganda’s public assets, opened Uganda’s economy to the world and diversified exports that included traditionally produced foodstuffs for domestic consumption such as beans, maize/corn and fish. Trade Unions that protect workers’ interests were severely curtailed and employers were empowered under principles of labor flexibility to hire and fire at will and pay wages at or below subsistence level. Immigrant workers were allowed to enter and work in Uganda under a liberal immigration policy. The role of the state in economic activities was virtually eliminated. Market forces and laissez faire capitalism had full reign over Uganda’s economy hoping that through a trickle down mechanism, the benefits of economic growth would trickle to the rest of the economy and the population which sadly has not happened since 1987. Social sectors of education, healthcare and housing etc that were considered unproductive in the short run were starved of funds and that is why they are on the verge of total collapse.

Cheap imports including second hand clothes knocked many local industries out of business and forced others to perform below installed capacity and to lay off workers. High interest rates to reduce money in the economy and keep inflation low made it difficult for small and medium enterprises that create jobs to borrow and open up new businesses or expand existing ones. Balanced budget as a requirement under SAP resulted in massive retrenchment of public servants, creating the ‘new poor” in Uganda society. The export of food resulted in shortages in Uganda markets pushing up prices beyond the means of many households, creating unprecedented hunger, under-nutrition and nutrition related diseases including neurological abnormalities such as insanity made worse by stress. To increase export production, large swathes of land were cleared of vegetation leading to soil erosion, adverse hydrological and thermal changes as manifested by frequent droughts and floods and associated food shortages.

Meanwhile Museveni’s attention was directed to religious wars in Sudan between Muslims in the north and Christians in the south, Anglo-Saxon and French wars in Rwanda and ultimately in Zaire/DRC that ousted Mobutu and caused Africa’s First World War. At the same time the war in the north and east of Uganda raged on. Human and financial resources were drained from Uganda’s economic and social development to war efforts. When the wars in the Great Lakes Region abated another one was opening up in Somalia. Again Museveni who was installed to safeguard European interests was called upon to send troops to Somalia only to have Uganda’s capital city of Kampala attacked by Somali terrorists with heavy casualties some of them fatal.

Thus, as long as Museveni continues to serve western interests satisfactorily he will be re-elected again and again. Make no mistake about that. Museveni will exit Uganda’s State House and handover the $80 million presidential jet only when western powers who installed him feel he has served his term and should go. But before we propose what should be done to pressure western powers to let Museveni go soonest and possibly in 2011, let us look briefly at how Museveni came to power and what has sustained him there for twenty five years.

For those Ugandans who still do not know who installed Museveni into power and why he has been engaged in regional wars that are of no interest to Uganda, read the following quotation very carefully. “War for the control of the Democratic Republic of Congo – what should be the richest country in the world – began in Uganda in the 1980s, when now Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni shot his way to power with the backing of Buckingham Palace, the White House and Tel Aviv behind him.

Paul Kagame now president of Rwanda served as Museveni’s Director of Military Intelligence. Kagame later trained at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas [USA], before the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) – backed by Roger Winter, the U.S. Committee on refugees, and the others above – invaded Rwanda. The RPF destabilized and then secured Rwanda. This coup d’etat is today misunderstood as the ‘Rwandan genocide’. What played out in Rwanda in 1994 is now playing out in Darfur, Sudan; regime change is the goal, ‘genocide’ is the tool of propaganda used to manipulate and disinform.

In 1996, Paul Kagame and Yoweri Museveni, with the Pentagon behind them, launched their covert war against Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko and his western backers. A decade later, there are 6 or 7 million dead, at the very least, and the war in Congo (Zaire) continues” (Peter Phillips 2006). Museveni has sent Uganda troops to Somalia to protect western interests. In return western interests have kept Museveni in power. That is the story.

Musevedni was installed by western powers that used Uganda guerrillas because they could not send European troops to Luwero jungles. Uganda guerrillas were thus used in a war that was not meant to serve their interests. No wonder there is bitterness. Although Museveni is very unpopular and western groups know it (and Museveni knows it too) he will stay in power as long as Europeans feel that domestic resistance is not strong enough to force their hand and let Museveni go.

Ugandans therefore need to do two things simultaneously: to form a solid coalition of opposition that will demonstrate determination to drive Museveni out of power with or without western help. Once western interests realize that Ugandans are very serious and mean what they are saying, they will let Museveni go to safeguard their interests in Uganda. So Ugandans help western powers to decide quickly by overcoming your differences and putting up a strong frontal attack against Museveni and warn western powers that if they do not act quickly chances are that their competitors such as the Chinese, the Indians and the Russians etc will be approached for help. Given Uganda’s strategic significance and abundant natural resources including oil, it will not be difficult to get non-western support.

Eric Kashambuzi

Museveni underestimated the people of Uganda

Standard

Eric Kashambuzi

Museveni came to power with a feudal mentality of governance. Feudalism was a system of political, economic and social organization in medieval Europe made up of three classes: the clergy who prayed and cared for the souls; the lords who governed and fought; and the serfs or peasants the majority who worked for the other two classes through exploitative tribute and tithes.

The feudal system was introduced in the great lakes region by Batutsi in Rwanda (especially) and Burundi, Bahima in Ankole and Bahororo in Rujumbura. Batutsi, Bahima and Bahororo were the lords and fighters and Bahutu and Bairu (slaves of the lords) the workers who paid exploitative tribute to the lords in foodstuffs, drinks and free labor including carrying lords and their family members in litters and/or their luggage when they travelled. The clergy and tithes were added to peasants’ burden during the colonial rule. As in medieval Europe the clergy preached peasants (and still do) not to worry about earthly material things and to suffer pain on earth for their rewards are in the kingdom of heaven. The story of a camel going through the eye of the needle conveys this message of hardship on earth very well.

With roots in Rujumbura and Ankole and familiarity with royal courts and feudal system and how Bahima and Bahororo rulers had worked with the clergy to squeeze peasants economically, socially and politically and keep them voiceless and powerless, Museveni decided to extend the feudal system in southwest Uganda to the rest of the country when he became president. He wanted to rule for a long time without resistance from the majority of Ugandans who are peasants.

As president, Museveni quickly formed three classes as in feudal Europe: lords made up of Bahororo, Bahima and their in-laws that are governing Uganda and commanding the military and other security forces and controlling strategic ministries; clergy of Protestant and Catholic bishops (whom Museveni has corrupted with Pajeros, jobs and an assortment of gifts including cows and brown envelops) who are praying for the souls of peasants and reminding them that their reward is in the kingdom of heaven; and peasants the main producers of goods and services for the comfort of lords and the clergy. Consequently, as in medieval Europe, Uganda peasants are being exploited through a wide range of taxes to raise government revenue to provide comfort for the lords and tithes to the church for the comfort of bishops and free labor on public works. Despite their hard work, Uganda peasants are poor, hungry and sick because of ruthless exploitation through these government and church taxes. If Ugandans have noticed, some bishops of Uganda today, unlike in the past, have become very rich.

To keep peasants obedient and follow his orders particularly at election time, Museveni embarked on a long term program of impoverishing them. He killed cooperatives and extension services and drastically reduced budgets for agriculture and rural development so that peasant’s productivity and income remain low (Museveni has emphasized the development of services in towns that benefit Uganda elite and foreign workers and 70 percent of Uganda’s GDP is generated in Kampala City with a population of under two million out of 33 million Ugandans).

Museveni urged peasants to produce for cash and not for the stomach so he generates foreign currency, leaving insufficient food at household level with all nutritional problems and ill health. He refused to provide NEPAD approved lunches that keep children in school and improve their performance especially girls (there was no need for Museveni to ask the World Bank to make recommendations on school lunches because they have worked in developed and developing countries. He did this to pre-empt debate on the importance of school lunches during the campaign for 2011 elections). Museveni drastically reduced health budget and introduced user fees for consultation and medicines, making access to health services unaffordable for most peasants. Similarly education was starved of funds and introduction of user fees and abandonment of some schools kept many peasant children out of school. Through labor flexibility, employers have hired and fired at will and paid wages at or below subsistence level.

The outcome of this policy has been high levels of absolute poverty at over 50 percent, rising unemployment, rising school dropout and rising early marriage, rising hunger, rising infant and maternal mortality and rising diseases of poverty such as jiggers, sexually transmitted diseases and scabies etc among peasants. However, Museveni forgot (or ignored) the historical fact that when peasants are hungry and feel they have been squeezed in other ways they get cranky causing problems for governments. Uganda peasants are on the verge of getting cranky – they are hungry and angry because they feel they are overexploited, impoverished and are losing the only asset they have: land e.g. through municipal expansion into rural areas in some cases without consultations as in Rukungiri. The NRM primary election that saw ministers and senior MPs lose is a signal of what lies in store.

Using security forces and bishops and resistance political system, Museveni virtually destroyed pre-independence parties of Uganda Peoples’ Congress (UPC) and Democratic Party (DP) that had been built on support of followers of Anglican and Catholic faiths. He created a one party political system: the National Resistance Movement (NRM) which he has headed as chairman and led with an iron fist since its creation.

Having severely wounded UPC and DP and strangled FDC, Museveni thought he could dictate what goes on in NRM, kick out of parliament those he does not like and retain those he likes and bring in new ones he can count on or force as necessary to push his agenda through parliament. The rising number of independent NRM candidates is a clear signal that Museveni has a revolt in his closet which if combined with peasant anger could turn into a revolution in the near future.

Museveni who claims to be a historian should study carefully the role of peasants in the ending of the feudal system in Europe and peasants and enlightenment thinkers in the French Revolution. Ugandans have entered the age of reason or enlightenment where they will not accept anything that comes from Uganda leaders including Museveni himself. They will ask questions and demand convincing answers. Failure to respond will result in undermining the authority of Uganda leaders.

Museveni should also study carefully the role of the imperial guard, the military and external factor in the overthrow of the Ethiopian monarchy. The imperial guard stood by as junior military officers dragged the Emperor from his palace and drove him away in a beetle Volkswagen (he was used to riding in Rolls Royce). Western powers that had backed the Ethiopian Emperor for decades withdrew support and blamed him for failing to care for his people especially during the famine of the 1970s. Museveni therefore cannot rely too heavily on his security forces including his presidential guard and donor support. They could slip out of his hands given how unpopular Museveni has become.

Eric Kashambuzi

UAH forumist working with UN in New York

If SDP quits IPC, it will be a big relief to IPC

Standard
It is inconsequential for IPC to collapse now. 60% of the objectives of setting up IPC have been achieved. The issue of IPC is not based on the parties but on the voters. Even with out IPC, the voters will automatically form their own IPC. I have observed and listened to voters here but they all agree that the issue is not parties but the desire to see Museveni out.
You will be surprised that one will vote against Museveni and then vote in an NRM MP. At the same time you will see one voting in KB  and a DP MP.

On Ssematimba, I believe his relationship with NRM stems back from his days with Cbs. Him and Mulindwa Muwonge left cbs with a disgruntled mind and were quickly used to fight Mengo by using Ssematimba’s super fm. I remember one time when museveni was pushing for the regional tier, his special press conference was attended by among others; Mulindwa Muwonge, Tamale Mirundi, Robert Ssebunya and Ofono Opondo. It seems therefore automatic that when time came for Ssematimba to join politics, he had to join his masters.

If SDP quits IPC, it will be a big relief to IPC. If anything, we dont want IPC to be associated with confused people like Mabike. If he quits, then Lukwago’s issue will be settled and he will automatically be the mayor. SDP alone is weaker than Bwanika’s PDP. It can however win some positions at local council levels such as councilors and LC 1 leadership.
By the way, doesn’t the IPC protocol provide for suspension from the co-operation? I think it would be wise to suspend SDP before they even think of quiting.
Jude Mayanja

WHO ARE BAHORORO?

Standard

Dear Ugandans,

I have received many requests to elaborate on what I have written about Bahororo. While many people have some ideas about Bahima and Batutsi, they are not sure who Bahororo are, how they are related to Bahima and Batutsi and how and when they entered Uganda. This brief will try to provide a clarification. But first let me summarize the relationship between Bahororo on the one hand and Bahima, Batutsi and Banyamulenge on the other hand.

1.      It is now established that Bahororo, Bahima and Batutsi have a common Nilotic and Luo-speaking ancestry. The Nilotic Luo-speaking people entered Uganda from Bahr el Ghazel in southern Sudan with long horn cattle. It is not clear what caused them to move. However, conflict with Dinka people (whom they resemble) over grazing land and water has been mentioned as a contributing factor.  They crossed the Nile in phases into the grasslands further south. In Bunyoro, Toro and Buganda the Nilotic cattle herders mixed extensively with Bantu speaking people and formed new communities based on mixed farming of cattle herding, crop cultivation and some manufacturing largely of iron products. They adopted Bantu language.

2.      Those who entered Ankole (Nkore at that time) adopted the name of Bahima and Lunyankole (Bantu) language. They introduced long horn cattle.  Bahima decided not to intermarry with Bantu speakers they found in the area who practiced cattle (short horn) herding, crop cultivation and manufacturing activities. Bantu speakers who were dubbed Bairu (slaves) by Bahima had a diversified economy and were relatively well off than the new comers.

3.      The Nilotic cattle herding groups that entered Rwanda and Burundi adopted the name of Batutsi and Kinyarwanda (Bantu) language. They also adopted Bahutu king’s title of Mwami, meaning that Bahutu had kings before the Nilotic herders arrived. Like Bahima in Ankole, Batutsi in Rwanda and Burundi refrained from intermarriage with Bantu speakers whom they dubbed Bahutu (slaves).

4.      Batutsi who entered eastern Congo now Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) adopted the name of Banyamulenge. Banyamulenge do not intermarry with local communities.

5.      In mid-1600s, a group of Batutsi from Rwanda under the leadership of Bashambo clan founded Mpororo kingdom covering northern part of present-day Rwanda and mostly southwest Ankole. They adopted the name of Bahororo (people of Mpororo). Like Bahima, Batutsi and Banyamulenge, Bahororo do not intermarry with Bantu speakers dubbed Bairu.  Thus, Bahororo are Nilotic Batutsi from Rwanda. That is why Batutsi and Bahororo are sometimes used interchangeably.

6.      Thus, Bahima, Batutsi, Banyamulenge and Bahororo are cousins with the same ancestry of Nilotic Luo-speaking people and long horn cattle herders (or pastoralists). Because they do not marry outside their ethnic group, they have retained their distinct Nilotic identity.Wherever they live, they adopt local names and local languages. That is all. They know and help one another very well. An ‘attack’ on one Muhororo is regarded by Bahororo as an attack on all of them.

7.      Mpororo kingdom (kingdom of Bahororo people) disintegrated due to internal quarrels within 100 years of its founding. Bahororo then scattered. Some returned to Rwanda, others took refuge in Rujumbura in 1800, some stayed in Ankole and the rest went to other parts of Uganda.

8.      The part of Mpororo in Ankole was taken over by Bahinda ruling clan of Bahima. Thus, Bahororo in Ankole became commoners like Bairu (slaves). To avoid being referred to as commoners Bahororo adopted the name of Bahima in Ankole, in Rujumbura and elsewhere. That is why they were not known until recently.

9.      Although they lost their territory and suspended using their Bahororo name, they tenaciously clung together. While Bahima, Bahororo, Batutsi and Banyamulenge intermarry, men do not marry outside of Nilotic ethnic group. When other Uganda men (mostly educated or wealthy) marry Bahororo, Bahima, Batutsi and Banyamulenge women they are ‘tutsified’ and become an integral part of Bahororo, Bahima and Batutsi in-laws, basically abandoning their ancestral relatives. Kesaasi confirmed this relationship in her recent article in Observer (Uganda) newspaper.

10.     Bahororo in Ankole who had kept a low profile, resurfaced during negotiations leading up to independence. They demanded a separate district in southwest Ankole (roughly present-day Ntungamo district). They were not successful. Museveni who is a Muhororo was old enough to understand what was going on.

11.     Museveni realized that Bahororo numerical inferiority will always work against them in a democratic system based on majority rule. Revolutionary violence and later democracy at gun point would be the answer.

12.     While still in High School Museveni began to organize. While at Dar es Salaam University in Tanzania, he undertook military and revolutionary training.   Realizing that Bahororo were very few he rallied the support of disgruntled people: Bahima who had lost their Ankole kingdom in 1967, Batutsi who had lost their kingdom in Rwanda in 1959, Baganda who had lost their kingdom in 1967, Catholics who had been defeated by Protestants in Uganda elections, and western capitalism that had been wounded as a result of nationalization of private business and introduction of socialism in Uganda.

13.     Using the pretext of so-called 1980 rigged elections Museveni with help of western media and money launched a five-year devastating guerrilla war in the Luwero Triangle on Buganda soil. He captured power in 1986.

14.     Museveni who is power hungry soon realized that Marxist ideology would not keep him in power. He abandoned it, embraced capitalism, denationalized foreign enterprises and returned Asians in exchange for western political, diplomatic and financial support. Linda Chalker, former minister in Thatcher government became Museveni’s close adviser. Later the New Labor government in UK gave Museveni a breathing space and exempted him from introducing multiparty politics. “The new British Labor government has decided that it ‘will not press for multiparty reform in Uganda’” (Journal of Democracy April 1998). This breathing space gave Museveni an opportunity to destroy pre- independence parties: Catholic-based Democratic Party (DP) and Protestant-based Uganda Peoples’ Congress (UPC) and build National Resistance Movement (NRM) that absorbed DP and subsequently UPC supporters. When multiparty politics was reintroduced, DP and UPC were almost dead and have not recovered. FDC which started off very well is being strangled. In real terms, Uganda is one party state, Museveni’s NRM.

15.     Using structural adjustment instruments, Museveni managed to marginalize or get rid of experienced Ugandans who were branded UPC supporters and refused to return those experienced Ugandans in diaspora except a few that were close to him. This environment gave Museveni the opportunity to hire Bahororo, Bahima, Batutsi and Banyamulenge cousins in government, private sector and security forces. Unfortunately most of them are poorly educated and inexperienced in running a government or business. That explains in large part why Uganda’s economy, ecology and society are in deep trouble. In pursuit of economic growth, NRM government forgot about development and sustainability.

16.     As Bahororo consolidated, they began to come out of the shadows and to declare they are Bahororo, not Bahima anymore. Using historian advisers, Museveni has managed to identify Bahororo wherever they live in Uganda, in Africa and beyond and has given them juicy jobs in government and in business. The ministries of foreign affairs and finance and security forces are packed with Bahororo.  It is rumoured (subject to confirmation) that Bashambo women (ruling Bahororo clan) have formed an association of Bashambokazi Kumanyana (to know one another) so they can help one another and consolidate Bahororo hold onto power.

17.      Because many Bahororo and Bahima lack good education and experience as noted above, they have relied heavily on foreign (and largely young) advisers (with little knowledge of Uganda’s sensitive history and culture) while there are many Ugandans with good qualifications and a wealth of experience un or under-employed. Bahororo have monopolized strategic institutions and businesses in order to stay in power indefinitely.

18.To sum up, Bahororo are mostly concentrated in former Ankole district and Rujumbura county of Rukungiri district. They are Nilotic people who speak Bantu language. Their Nilotic cousins are Bahima, Batutsi and Banyamulenge.  These cousins do not marry outside their Nilotic ethnic group. Bahororo are now the rulers of Uganda led by President Museveni who has been in power for 25 years and is now campaigning for another five-year term.

 

Eric Kashambuzi

Bahima and Bahororo Museveni Plan Revealed

Standard

 Dear Ugandans,

Ugandans must begin to think dialectically.Dialectics is the art or practice that helps to understand that we are not always told the truth. Dialectics therefore helps us to get to the truth by making sure that the absent is made the present because the greater part of the truth is in that which is absent.

Since colonial days Ugandans have been largely conditioned to obey what the teacher, or priest and increasingly Museveni says. Our history is still based on what John Hanning Speke (1863) and his aristocratic European and African followers connected with the royal courts wrote. They came up with the Hamitic Myth that Bahima and their Batutsi, Bahororo and Banyamulenge cousins are ‘white’ people, more intelligent, physically attractive and born to rule and that they brought civilization to the ‘Dark Continent’ then occupied by Negroes (black people).

By contrast, they emphasized that the Negroes were short with round heads and thick noses, unintelligent and born to be ruled and to serve as slaves (Bairu) of the ruling hamitic people. Although these stereotypes have been discredited with scientific evidence and performance at school and at work, Bahororo and their cousins of Nilotic Luo-speaking ancestry from Bahr-el Ghazel in southern Sudan (not Ethiopia as Speke wrote) have insisted they are superior and will rule in perpetuity wherever they happen to be, hence the idea of Tutsi Empire in the Great Lakes region.

The sad part is that Ugandans who are very well qualified, knowledgeable and experienced have acquiesced, allowing people with dubious qualifications to mess up the country. Those in Uganda look around you and what do you see: half naked people; some being consumed by jiggers; hungry people; sick people; school dropout people and unemployed people.  Why should Museveni be given another five years? Because he has very little to offer, Museveni has come up with the idea of sending Ugandans to the moon if reelected! This shows how Museveni despises Ugandans.

In order to revamp their dominance that had been declining since independence, Museveni and his cousins realized that democracy based on majority rule would disadvantage them because of their numerical inferiority (they had seen what happened in Rwanda in 1959). They decided on the military option in alliance with western backers. They played on the frustration of Baganda and Catholics (who had been denied access to political gains by Obote). Museveni stressed the false message that they went to the bush to overthrow an illegitimate regime of Obote after the 1980 elections. The real objective was for Bahororo of Ankole and Rujumbura to regain power which they lost when Mpororo kingdom disintegrated in mid-18th century and their territory was taken over by Bahima under Bahinda clan. Bahororo in Ankole demanded a separate district out of Ankole during negotiations leading up to independence but did not succeed. This might explain why Ankole did not regain its kingdom!

Sadly, Ugandans did not ask why Museveni had gone to Tanzania in the 1960s to principally undergo military and revolutionary training and actual participation in fighting alongside liberation fighters in southern Africa. This decision was taken 20 years before the so-called 1980 rigged elections! Museveni should have gone to Makerere to study economics and political science where they were more developed than at Dar College. The Dar campus of then East African University specialized in law.

The Commonwealth observers certified the 1980 elections and confirmed Obote victory. Observers from the Commonwealth have been in Uganda to observe elections since Museveni came to power and have certified them and confirmed Museveni victory. When asked whether he rigged elections, Museveni has always denied because the Commonwealth observers certified his victory.  So why did Museveni embark on such a destructive guerrilla war in 1981 when the Commonwealth observers had declared Obote victory in 1980?

Ugandans should have raised dialectical questions why Museveni actually went to war. If they had linked his military training in the 1960s they would have realized that he had goals other than toppling Obote and would probably have refused to join him in a destructive war. Ugandans also did not ask why guerrilla commanders and chiefs of intelligence and counterintelligence were Bahima, Bahororo and Batutsi refugees while other Ugandans were given diplomatic, political and administrative responsibilities far away from the armoury.

When NRM captured power in 1986 Museveni and his inner circle came up with ideas that should have raised an alarm if Ugandans thought dialectically. The idea of individual merit was designed to facilitate Museveni in appointing Bahororo, Bahima and Batutsi in key and strategic positions, arguing that they were the only qualified individuals on the block. That is why key institutions and ministries are staffed with Bahororo, Bahima and Batutsi or in-laws (no disrespect, we are just reporting facts). For instance, look at the ministry of foreign affairs at home and in diplomatic missions abroad. Do not go by the official diplomats list presented on a regional basis. Some who are registered as Baganda and easterners could be Bahororo, or Batutsi whose ancestors migrated there and have remained Nilotic in identity because men do not marry outside of their ethnic Nilotic group. Look below the surface and you may get a shock.

Through historian advisers (and he has hired many of them) Museveni has identified Batutsi, Bahima and Bahororo in all parts of Uganda, in the great lakes region and in the diaspora. These people speak local languages and adopt local names but have retained their Nilotic identity. Museveni has also identified men that have married Bahororo, Batutsi and Bahima women (the in-laws) and given them important posts because when they marry these women men become ‘Tutsified’ and abandon their ancestral relations. It is rumored that many men are being enticed to marry Bahororo, Batutsi and Bahima women in order to have easy access to state house and eat big!

In other countries citizens demand to know the background including ancestry and education etc of their leaders and to even protest some appointments when they are not satisfied with the choices. In Uganda because we lack a dialectical mind we take things at face value.  Vetting by Uganda Parliament is a formality. Consequently, you may find that people who pose as Baganda or Itesot are actually Batutsi, Bahima and Bahororo except that they reside in Buganda or Teso etc, speak local language and have a local name and nothing else. Ugandans should begin to look into these matters so that the country is not hijacked now that we know the trick being used. 

At face value, the ideas that Ugandans should move and settle anywhere in the country to consolidate national unity and peasants should sell their land and start business in towns to get out of poverty trap sound progressive indeed.  The expansion of municipalities deep into rural areas has been hailed as a welcome innovation that will permit investors to develop land and create jobs.

What we are witnessing is that the rich who are connected to the first family and in-laws are acquiring land at frightening speed, pastoralists are occupying land (Buliisa case) they judge to be unoccupied and Batutsi are back in Uganda and in some parts like those in Ntungamo they already outnumber indigenous people and are speaking Kinyarwanda language. Museveni knows that once you are landless and functionally illiterate, you are finished. You are voiceless and powerless and he can do whatever he wants with you including forcing you to vote for him. If Ugandans had searched for what was not being said they probably would have rejected these ideas (or modified them) that are now causing trouble. It will be a miracle if Balaalo left Buliisa! 

Ugandans should have known that focusing on primary education, denying repeating classes and refusing to give school lunches was a wrong policy. We have ended up with many dropouts (hungry children cannot stay in school) and illiterate primary graduates. Museveni introduced school fees in higher education knowing full well that bright students from poor families would not afford. Those with money would ‘buy’ education, hence evening classes at Makerere as we are told. That is why we have ended up with university graduates many of whom cannot tell you exactly which courses they studied. I have come across many Uganda graduates at UN meetings and at home. When you converse with them you really wonder how they graduated and got such important jobs. Some who join diplomatic missions go back to school leaving their seats in conference halls empty. And they still get paid for work they did not do!

When the idea of cultural leaders was introduced, Ugandans should have realized that Museveni had hidden something. All over the place we are now getting kings. If not mistaken, I gather Banyakigezi are demanding a cultural head. Soon the whole country will have kings who probably will replace LC 5 chair persons as district leaders. Museveni does some tricky and sensitive things incrementally.

NRM as a political institution was designed to kill UPC and DP. The leadership of DP was excited that UPC had been defeated and rushed to join NRM without checking what could have been hidden from them. Protestant bishops who were the bedrock of UPC were bribed en masse with Pajeros (I know only one bishop who did not get a Pajero) and other gifts and abandoned UPC in large numbers. UPC and DP as we knew them are dead – forever! Catholics got juicy jobs and boasted it was their turn to ‘eat’ (if you did not understand what was going on don’t get offended but learn from that error). It appears the time of eating big may be slowing down. Had Ugandans looked at this whole thing dialectically our country would probably be a better place today.  

Ugandans should have seen that Museveni’s decentralization policy was not to bring services closer to the people but to weaken national unity efforts as different tribes were compartmentalized into virtually watertight economically unviable districts. That is what British colonial administration did and has caused national disunity since then.  Greedy individuals who focus on parliamentary seats have missed the larger and negative picture of economic un-viability that frustrates efforts to bring services closer to the people. At the same time Museveni is relentlessly pushing for larger entities at the East African economic integration and political federation levels. Dividing Uganda into ‘tribal’ districts gives Museveni control over Ugandans while creating East African economic integration and political federation advance his dream of Tutsi Empire! The military option has not worked so far but may not be off the table. Can’t Ugandans and other East Africans see this contradiction between dividing Uganda into tiny political units called districts while at the same time fighting for a larger East African political federation?  

The good news is that Ugandans have just entered the enlightenment phase and are now questioning the status quo. They want to know who is governing them, their ancestry and what they stand for. Matters that were taboo are now open to question. That is why Uganda leaders including political party heads are under scrutiny.

Museveni’s disastrous leadership of Uganda since 1986 has removed lingering doubts that Bahororo and their cousins were born to rule. Being a successful guerrilla fighter does not necessarily mean that one can succeed as head of state. Museveni would possibly have done better had he remained army commander. He did not have civilian governance experience and did not take advice. That explains in part why Uganda is in a mess as outlined above. Let me add the ecological component to complete the picture of failures.

Ecologically you will see that the river near your home has dried up, the spring well is gone, rainfall does not come at the right time and when it does it is too heavy and destroys crops and washes away soil. The dry season that used to be mild is now so dry that animals and crops die causing hunger and loss of income.  Warnings have been given but environmental management is not on Museveni’s priority list.

Because Museveni has run out of ideas he has suggested that if reelected he will send Ugandans to the moon! What makes Ugandans think that Museveni, if reelected and keeps the same cabinet (which he will), will do better than he has done over the last twenty five years?  A coalition with a clear goal to bring in well educated, experienced and ‘clean’ individuals might help.

In the final analysis Uganda needs to be saved from itself. Fortunately, Uganda still has well qualified and experienced people whose hands and souls are still clean. Ugandans must overcome fear and express their dialectical opinions to balance the conversation so that Ugandans take informed decisions. Messages coming through are clear: Ugandans do not always have to be ruled by those who brandish guns for democracy at gun point will fail in the long term.

ERIC KASHAMBUZI

erickashambuzi@yahoo.com

UAH FORUMIST and a development consultant living in New York

Ancestry and origin of Bahima and their cousins

Standard

Sometime back The Observer (Uganda) published an article using my research material which show that Bahima, Bahororo, Banyamulenge and Batutsi (who are cousins) were Nilotic Luo-speaking people from Bahr el Ghazal, southern Sudan. Some Ugandans called me and complained why I had written such an article. Some denied the research findings arguing that they were descendants of Bachwezi and white people and therefore not Luo. One Ugandan subsequently wrote that Bahima and their cousins were not Luo but Basoga were. I wrote back showing that Bachwezi were black and not white people. Bachwezi were a Bantu aristocracy.

 In subsequent articles I showed that Batutsi, Bahima, Bahororo and Banyamulenge are scattered in many parts of Uganda and have maintained close relations with one another in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and eastern DRC. They have benefited from the NRM regime led by Bahororo and Bahima under the leadership of Museveni.

Bahima, Bahororo, Banyamulenge and Batutsi adopt local names and local languages wherever they settle but men do not marry outside their Nilotic ethnic group. Accordingly, they have retained their Nilotic identity and know one another very well. For example, a Mututsi may be registered in Buganda as a Muganda but knows who s/he is and whom to work with in political and economic matters. They do these things silently. Similarly an Itesot or Langi may be a Tutsi or Hima whose parents or grandparents moved into the area as cattle herders, have remained there and use local names and local languages.

Attached below are two maps which show the origin and ancestry of Bahima, Bahororo, Banyamulenge and Batutsi. The first map is taken from a book titled “The African Middle Ages: 1400-1800” by Roland Oliver and Anthony Atmore, published by Cambridge University Press in 1981. The map from Oliver and Atmore shows the origin and movement of Luo people from Sudan to the Great Lakes region. The second map is taken from a book titled “The peopling of Africa”, by James L. Newman, published in 1995 by Yale University Press, USA. These two maps confirm and put to rest the issue of the origin and ancestry of Bahima, Bahororo, Banyamulenge and Batutsi.

Also attached bellow is a third map which shows where Banyarwanda have settled in Uganda. It is taken from an article titled “Uganda and Rwanda: A Case of Neo-Colonial Politics Gone Beserk?” by Ondoga Ori Amaza, published by Political & Economic Monthly of Southern Africa magazine. Volume 7, No.10 July 1994.

Therefore it is imperative that Uganda government statistics particularly those on ethnic allocation of jobs in public service go beyond each incumbent’s official record as a Muganda, Munyankole, Itesot, Landi, etc. Because of what has transpired in Uganda since 1986, government statistics must also show the job incumbent’s ancestry and to whom they are married. This is the reality of the situation in Uganda and not sectarianism as some people would want us to believe so they can continue exploiting others.

 

 

Eric Kashambuzi

UAH FORUMIST