Tag Archives: Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

ROOTS OF THE 1966 CRISIS: PARLIAMENT DEBATES THE SECURITY SITUATION IN BUGANDA

Standard
Forumists,
Before I give you my next piece on the beginnings of the 1966 crisis, allow me to first, fast-forward to 1965 and furnish you you with the record of the parliamentary debate on the security situation in Buganda.  That debate raged on for several weeks starting from 12the March 1965 as you can see below.
The debate starts from from P.1383 (see “MOTION”).  This is the substance of the submission by the mover of the motion, Mr Rwamwaro.  The rest of the debate will follow in due course….

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Patrick Otto

“THE SAME HEAT THAT MELTS THE BUTTER HARDENS THE EGG”

====================================================================
==
Advertisements

JOHNSTON’S LANDLORDS, BATAKA ENDED!

Standard

Dear UAH,

May be i can help to cure people’s  delusion about all this business of Abataka and SSabataka. Let me chip in.

With the signing of the 1900 agreement and the creation of the mainly protestant landed gentry, the Bataka lost all their estates.  Many had to dig up the bones of their ancestors as they were evicted by the new landlords.  Those evictions were effected by Bahima, as some people would want to tell us.  As you say, if it was not for the Busulu and Nvujjo law of 1928, the parasitism of the Johnstonian landed gentry was going to cause events similar to what France witnessed in 1789.
The heat was already on even in 1945-49, but AB Cohen helped Kabaka Mutesa II by deporting him.  That crystallised some sympathy from the same people that were already beginning to express disgust with Mmengo.  In many ways, the recent land act is the icing on the cake of the Busulu & Envujjo law of 1928: helps to clam down the restless former owners of Buganda land that were disinherited by the 1900 Agreement.
That whole business of some people claiming that they will defend their oppressors is a typical case of false consciouness: njagala omwami wange kubanga ankuba…Stockholm syndrome.
In any case, one of the UAH members called ,Mr Micheal Senyonjo, has titled land in Ruharo Ward in Mbarara.  Which Bahima have evicted him?  Is it because Harry Johnston declined to create landlords in Nkore and elsewhere?  I am assuming that we are talking about the Mr Senyonjo who was Baptised at St James Cathedral at Ruharo, as Michael Wilson Ishenyonzo, brought up by his Munyankore grandmother in that area, attended Mbarara Public School, and whose father is actually a Rwandan from Kyazanga, in Masaka….talk of weeping more that the bereaved.

Anyhow, let Mr Senyonjo and others in his category read the letter below of the grievances of the real Bataka that were robbed by those who are today pretending to be custodians of Buganda cultural heritage.  Let Mr Senyonjo show us how Kabaka Chwa responded to that petition, and I will show you an incurable Mukopi.

May 1921.

Kampala

Abataka to Chief Secretary, Government of Uganda

We have humbly addressed to you this letter while emploring you to kindly consider that is embodied therein and which have made us ap­proach His Excellency the Governor, and which runs thus:

We have eventually realized that a considerable length of time has been taken in our country of Buganda Kingdom, since the Abataka brought up their complaints for the re-acquisition of their Butaka lands: notwithstanding the fact that they have put up their rightful claims to the auth ority of our Buganda Government which should do justice, nothing is yet done for them because of the reason that those who are expected to arbitrate are the ones who unlawfully acquired their fellowmen’s butaka lands by reason of the 1900 agreement: which provided that each one should survey his own estates which he held in possession. Having realized our rights as the lineage sons of the Bataka in Buganda ; who pre served our country from long ago on the system of butaka land tenure, have to be recognized as well as our ancestors.

We, some of the Abataka, having discovered that a serious mistake was made in this matter, and are of the opinion that unless we try to put it to an end, it will ruin our kingdom, therefore humbly pray you to grant what we are asking you in this petition – which is that, ‘We have formed an association with the aim of preserving our Butaka estates in Buganda and is known as Ekibiina ky’ Abaganda Abataka’ (The Association of Baganda Ancestors or Bataka); and the following are the chief aims of its formation:

1. To start the reorganization of Butaka estates that existed before the advent to this country of His Majesty’s Government of England ;

2. To give ,back all butaka estate’s to the original proprietors in accordance with our native customs;

3. To preserve and to see that each one gets his original butaka estate and the British Government ratifies and preserve same;

4. To recognize all’clan institutions that existed in the country and their relative duties to our Kabaka and for each clan to have a repre sentative who airs her interests in the central legislature as we used to do in the olden times.

This association declares to be loyal to all good laws and to serve George V and all his successors as all other countries are directed to do in the Empire of His Majesty George V.

We humbly pray to the British Government to sympathetically con­sider the petition of the Abataka of Buganda , because of the grave error committed in our nation of Buganda and referred to above. We further humbly state that we realize that it will be difficult for our country to progress as is planned and promised by Government (unless the above error is remedied).

We have come to realize that the foundation of our country based on 1900 (agreement) tends to develop a smaller section of the country where as the larger section is on the contrary discontented and petitioning about the “preservation of the good customs of Buganda: we visualize the difficulty in the way of progress by Government without the support of the Abataka who form the nation of Buganda. Without the Bataka, there is not Buganda . We assume and hope, Sir, that you will agree to grant what we ask you in this letter and to receive and entertain whatever we shall submit to you for consideration and to sympathize with our case, as without such assistance, we feel we shall not endure and win what we are aiming at; we have formed this association not because of planning a rapid progress, .hut solely to have a pr6per foundation laid upon which progress, may be based. The agreement to send up this petition has been reached at the time when the chief signatories to the 1900 agreement are still alive because after their departure, it will be most difficult for the younger generation to come to settlement of such historical affairs now in dispute.

We earnestly pray soliciting your sympathy for any of our petitions and for your excused in having appended our signatories on matters of such an important nature as these.

We are, Sir, Your humble servants:

Daudi Basudde

Yuda Musoke Kasa

The Secretaries of the Association of Bataka of Buganda .


Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

SABASSAJJA SIR EDWARD FREDERICK WILLIAM DAVID WALUGEMBE MUTEBI LUWANGULA MUTESA II AND THE REALITIES OF LIFE:

Standard

SABASSAJJA SIR EDWARD FREDERICK WILLIAM DAVID WALUGEMBE MUTEBI LUWANGULA MUTESA II AND THE REALITIES OF LIFE:

WIVES (9) TRIBE OFFSPRING (18)
NESTA M. RUGUMAYO MUTOORO Prince (Kiweewa) Robert Masamba Kimera
Sarah Nalule KISOSONKOLE MUGANDA Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II

Prince (Omulangira) Richard Walugembe Bamweyana

Prince (Omulangira) Patrick Nakibinge

Edith Kasozi MUGANDA Prince (Omulangira) Suuna Frederick Wampamba

Princess (Omumbejja) Alice Mpologoma Zaalwango

Damali Nnakawombe Kisosonkole MUGANDA Prince (Omulangira) Henry Kalemeera

Prince (Omulangira) Katabaazi Mukarukidi

Princess (Omumbejja) Dorothy Kabonesa Namukaabya, Nassolo

Muzaana Nalwooga MUGANDA Prince (Omulangira) George Michael Ndawula
Prince (Omulangira) Daudi Golooba
Princess Kaakako Rwanchwende MUNYANKORE Prince (Omulangira) Herbert Kateregga
Princess Winifred Keihangwe MUNYANKORE Prince (Omulangira) Daudi Kintu Wasajja
Beatrice Kabasweka. MUTORO Princess (Omumbejja) Dina Kigga Mukarukidi
Kate Ndagire MUGANDA Princess (Omumbejja) Anne Sarah Kagere Nandawula

Princess (Omumbejja) Catherine Agnes Nabaloga,

? ? Princess (Omumbejja) Diana Balizza Muggale Teyeggala
? KIKUYU Princess (Omumbejja) Stella Ndagire

Nyakazaana was the wife of Zachary Kiwanuka Sensalire

Standard

1/7  What do some Baganda mean when they say that police spokesperson “Nabakooba is a partisan Muhima on a pro ‘Nyakazaana’ anti people mission” ?  You mean support for Nyakazaana is pro-Hima and probably anti-Ganda?

2/7  Bahima particularly Maama Nyakazaana, have given Buganda Kabakas and Chiefs.  The prominent Nyakazaana is of the Bahinda clan of the Royal family of Nkore (“Ankole”) and the earlier they got to know her, the better for their  effort to be in good stead with Buganda royalty.  Thusfar, things may not be good for you.
3/7  This is what I mean: Nyakazaana was the wife of Zachary Kiwanuka Sensalire, and together, they were the parents of Ham Mukasa Rwamujonjoza (1871-1956), one of the greatest sons of Buganda.  Ham Mukasa as you know was the Sekibobo of Buganda (i.e., the Chief of Kyaggwe), the longest serving chief in the history of Buganda.  Zakariya Kiwanuka Sensalire was himself a descendant of a long line of Sensalires, i.e. heads of the balalo clan of Njovu who are known to have gained prominence right from the days of Kabaka Kintu as the official balaalo.  Up to now, it remains the duty of the Njoveu clan to educate every new Kabaka on the art of bulaalo (herding).  Like other balaalo, Sensalire married from among his fellow Bahima, hence the Nyakazaana that you are now vilifying.

4/7  Nyakazaana, a Muhima, was the mother of Ham Mukasa as we have seen.  Ham Mukasa, with his first wife Anna Mawemuko, then went ahead to father  Victoria Sarah Nalwanga (b. 1910).  Nalwanga was the mother of the two Kisosonkoles, Sarah and Damali, the wives of Kabaka Edward Mutesa II.

5/7  Sarah Kisosonkole, (the great grand daughter of Nyakazana), was Kabaka Mutebi’s mother.  The Kiganda version of the Hima name, Nakazana has stuck around up to now.  Kabaka Mutebi’s first Namasole was known as Edith Nakazana.  She passed away recently in London, I think on 02 Sep 2008, and you may have even attended her funeral service!

The title of the Saza chief of Buddu is Pokino, Kyaggwe is Sekiboobo; Butambala, Katambala etc and Mawokota’s Saza chief is called Kaima.  Do they know the history of that culture of calling a very important Saza chief of the heartland of Buganda “Kaima”?

Mukasa was called Ham because of his Hamitic looks.  The  name itself is evidence of that background of Nyakazaana.  They could as well have called him Kaima/Kayima/ Muhima/Muyima Mukasa.

Note that Apollo Kagwa was a Muhima of the Nsenne clan, the migrants from Busongora….typical Musongora…angalia yeye!The name Ham comes from the bible.  We know of when the world faced liquidation and Noah floated some new company, one of whose board members was Ham, and the other one was Shem.  Ham is supposed to have spun off the Hamites who came over to Africa South of the Sahara and Shem is supposed to be responsible for the Semites of Middle East and Western (Mahgreb) Arabia…Misri, Libya etc.

Whoever give Mr Mukasa that Ham name must have been some missionary with that doctrine in mind, and with an idea about Mr Mukasa’s Hamitic parentage.  “Lujonjozi” was an innovative way of gandanising what is really a Kinyankore name

it is true that Ham Mukasa’s mother, i.e., my great grand mother, also Kabaka Mutebi’s great, great grand mother was a Munyankole by the name of Nyakazaana!!!”

If anyone wants to “dig dip” the history of Bahima and balaalo in Buganda, I will refer you to some readings that might give you some basic facts.  These might also be of some use for others that champion Buganda exclusionism and the anti-Hima and anti-Tutsi invective that abounds on this forum:

Reid, Richard J (2002), Political Power in Precolonial Buganda (Kampala: Fountain)…also available from James Currey and Ohio University Press.
Kaggwa, Apollo Sir (1934), The customs of Buganda  (New York: New York)
Ashe, RP (1889), Two Kings of Buganda (London).
Roscoe, J (1911), The Baganda: An Account of their Naive Customs and Beliefs (London).

OTTO PATRICK

UAH FORUMIST

ISLAM WAS ‘STATE’ RELIGION IS SUNA’S BUGANDA

Standard

Apolo Kagwa and Henry Wright Duta Kitakule, ‘How Religion came to Uganda ‘.

During the reign of Suna he was visited by some Arabs: Medi Abraham, and Kyera, and Amulain, and Mina, and Katukula Mungazija, and Zigeya Mubulusi.

Of these he liked Medi Abraham best, and gave him a great many presents, ivory, women and slaves.

Later on Medi Abraham told Suna, when he saw him killing people, that, although he killed them with so little thought, yet there was a God who created them, and from Him he had obtained his kingdom, and the people he governed, and that he himself was created by Him.

This Suna did not believe, for he said he knew his Lubare gods and they had given him his kingdom, but Medi Abraham repeated his words every time he was called to see him.

Some time afterwards Suna asked Medi, ‘Where is there a God greater than I?’ And Medi told him that there is a God who will raise up all who believe in Him, and they will go to Paradise .

When Suna understood th s, he agreed that Medi should read to him, but only now and then, and he got through the first four chapters of the Koran.

When he had got hold of these, more or less by word of mouth, Medi returned to the coast and did not come again to Uganda, and soon after this Suna died and Mutesa succeeded him, and made his capital at Banda, half-way between Mengo and Ngogwe. He also encouraged Arabs to visit him. Katukula Hali and his friends, and Hamuli Musirimu, and Makwega, a Swahili. Mutesa made friends of these and gave them many things just as his father Suna did before him.

King Mutesa asked Katukula what it was his ‘father used to talk to them about, when they visited him’, and he told him, ‘we used to tell him about God, and King of Kings, and that He will raise people from the dead’.

King Mutesa asked him, ‘Are you not lying? Is there a resurrection from the dead?’ They told him that indeed there was, and that those who learnt the words of God, when they died would rise again.

So King Mutesa said to Katukula, ‘Well then, come and teach me to read,’ and brought a Swahili called Makwega, who taught the king every day, and he learned Mohammedanism very quickly. Some others learned with him whose names are Musisi Sabakaki and Basude Sabawali of Kigalagala, who is now Mutola, and Myakonyi Omumyuka of Myu­kanya, and later Kauta Mukasa, who was Katikiro, and Mujabi Omuta­buza, and Tebukoya, and Sembuzi and Wakibi.

These were first taught, but afterwards the converts were slow in coming forward.

When the king went from his capital, Banda, and went to Nakawa he persevered with his reading and fasted during the first fast, and he then ordered all his subjects to read Mohammedanism. He also learned to write in Arabic: the Arab Wamisi brought the Mohammedan Kibali who taught the king.

Then Mutesa came from Nakawa to Nabulagala, and thence to Rubaga, where he stayed some time. He again ordered his people to read, but he saw they were not giving their minds to it. So he said to his head district chiefs, ‘I want to know if people are learning to believe in Islam well.’ His chiefs told him they were. ‘Well,’ he said, ‘if they are, how do they salute each other as Mohammedans?’ They replied, ‘Some salute thus – Sala­maleku dekimu musalamu – others, Sibwakede bwatulise.’

He saw they had not learned to salute, and found that those who had begun to really learn were very few indeed, and he gave orders that every man who had not learnt was to learn the salutation, Salamu alekumu ale­kumu salaamu or Shabuluheri. And in-anger the King gave orders that everyone refusing to learn was to be seized.

Many who would not learn were then seized, called infidels and killed. Then every married man fixed up a stone in his yard to pray at, and every chief built a mosque, and a great many people became readers, but were not circumcised, and all the chiefs learned that faith.

From the translation by, C. W. Hattersley in  Uganda Notes, May 1902, p. 35.

Suna: Kabaka Suna died in 1856 and was succeeded by Mutesa I, Kabaka 1856-84.

Medi Abraham: Ahmed bin Ibrahim, trader from Zanzibar .

DALLINGTON MAFTAA, PPS OF KABAKAS MUTESA I AND MWANGA

Standard
Addressees,
The African chap in that picture is one Dallington Maftaa, arrived in Buganda in 1876 as part of HM Stanley’s entourage.  He is responsible for all the correspondences from the Buganda royal court to the outside world.  In the Picture, he is with Mapeera (Father/Mon pere Lourdel) during Kabaka Mwanga’s reign.
In one of the letters to Muwanga, the writers are Dallington and Kabaka Mutesa.

HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS: KABAKA MUTESA TO COLONEL GORDON

Standard

6 Februay, 1876.

To Sir Canell Gorlden

My Dear Freind Gorden hear this my word be not angry with Kaber­ega Sultan of Unyoro. I been head that you been brought two manwar ships but I pray you fight not with these Wanyoro for they know not what is good and what is bad. I am, Mutesa king of Uganda for if you fight with governour if you fight with governour you fight with the king.

I will ask you one thing but let it may please you all ye Europeion for I say if I want to go to Bommbey if the Governour and if the Goyernour of Bommbey refuse me to past will l not find the orther road therefore I pray you my friends hear this my letter stop for a moment if you want to fight put ships in the river nile take west and north and I will take east and south and let us put wanyoro in to the middle and fight against them but first send me answer from this letter.  Because  I want to be a freind of the English. I am Mutesa son of Suna king of Uganda let God be with your Majesty even you all Amen.

Mutesa King of Uganda

Februay 6, 1876.

The reply from the Chief Secretary to the Bataka

Standard

Below is the response of the Colonial Secretary on the Bataka and their grievances on the loss of their land to the 1,000 or so new land owners created by the 1900 agreement:

Speech by E. B. Jarvis, Acting Governor of Uganda , to the Lukiko, 7 October 1926 on the  grievances of the of the Bataka.

Ssabasajja Kabaka, Chiefs and all people of Buganda :

I have come to read out the decision in the case of the Abataka from the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

1.  I asked Ssabasajja to summon an unusual Lukiko so that I could deliver to you the decision Of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Butaka land question which is the subject of much grievance in Buganda ; and which question, you all know, has been the subject of disagreement and correspondence for some years past.

2. You will recollect that a Commission of Inquiry was appointed in the year 1924, which was directed to carefully inquire and submit findings on the allocation of land by the Lukiko and to certify as to whether it was done in accordance with what had been stipulated in the 1900 agreement, and as to whether the allocation was based on the national custom of the olden days, and to recommend a measure of solution to be adopted, satis­fying both parties and remedying any miscarriage of justice, upon finding that what was laid down in the agreement was not followed and the national customs or traditions were respected.

3. The members of the Commission of Inquiry, having carefully inquired into the matter, eventually found from the evidence put before­ them, that some of the Abataka were unlawfully expelled from their butaka and their butaka estates were allocated to other people who were not entitled to same according to the Buganda Agreement and the Secretary of State for the Colonies has accordingly directed that the Buganda Government be informed that he also agrees with what the members of the Commission of Inquiry have found as a fact. In spite of the fact that the above was the situation, the authority of Buganda Government had failed to find a way out to solve the problem and the matters then left with the British Government were two items only: (a) a complete refusal to consider this matter at all and (b) to appoint a committee with, powers to consider everything recommended by the Commission of inquiry.

4. With regard to the last question of, appointing a committee, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, although satisfied with the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into this difficult problem, and while appreciating their sympathetic considerations aimed at finding a solution satisfactory to both parties, believes that the majority of the people concerned will also appreciate the difficulty of formulating a set of safeguard rules to be followed by such a committee which might be appointed and that to try to do so now after such an elapse of a long time although with good in­tentions, presents more difficulties as it ,has been established for many years, which fact limits the possibility of a successful change over. For a considerable time in the past, it was an accepted policy without any dispute even from those who are now petitioning for an inquiry to a reversion; the Secretary of State for the Colonies has further considered that there will not be enough unacquired fertile land which could be ex­changed with the proprietors of the lands sought to be acquired.

5. The Secretary of State for the Colonies agrees with the findings of the Commission that the question of large estates to an individual ownership when compared to the welfare of the country as a whole is not so import­ant as safeguarding the interests or well-being of the native tenants who might settle on the land.

6. Because of the foregoing explanation, the Secretary of State for the Colonies intimates that the Government of Buganda and people should be informed that he has decided not to interfere in the matter under dispute and to have nothing to do with the Crown Provisional Land Certificates issued to landowners and confirmed by the British Government.

7. The Secretary of State for the Colonies desires it to be publicly understood that the Abataka Association’s petition to him regarding land allocations in Buganda Government has received due consideration and therefore this decision should be treated as final.

8. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, however, hopes that the Buganda Government will not fail to follow what the Governor may find fit to be done to take to reserve and preserve as may be practicable, the places known as burial grounds and which existed at the time of the Uganda Agreement.

9. It is further required to inform you that the Secretary of State for the Colonies is of the opinion that land allocation by the Lukiko and the procedure adopted by the Regents in land matters which were referred to them, during the minority of the Kabaka, were neither carried out with justice nor with the trust attached to their office; and has therefore felt much sorrow and forced to point out that the Buganda Government should be more strictly supervised than has been hitherto the case in land dealing matters; the rights of landowners in their estates and the safe­guards to tenants who settle on such estates should be watched.

10. In conclusion I should like to remind you that it was first agreed when the Commission started its inquiry into the Butaka issue, that each party would be bound to accept whatever decision the Secretary of State for the Colonies may arrive at.

And I therefore sincerely hope without any doubt in my mind that both parties because of what was agreed before, will accept and humbly submit to this decision and forget (or bury) all what has been creating differences and start working together in good spirit for the welfare of Buganda development.

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

MENGO SHOULD STOP THE 9,000 SQ MILES IDIOCY

Standard
Yes indeed, I refer to the opium of the dispossessed.  It is good that you put that opium in figures: 9,000 sq miles, that you always claim was stolen by government.  So, about 8,000 sq miles given to 1,000 notables with the massive displacement of many bataka was no theft!
So, to more-or-less sing “sirikawo baby” to the Bakopi Bazukulu who had to unearth the bones of their dear ones to give way to the new lords, Mmengo pushes a pacifier into the mouths of the expropriated.  The pacifier, the dummy is the Akenda: the government has it!
Facts:
1.  The 9,000 sq miles alloted to government for public use was on the assumption that Buganda had land to the tune of 19,600 sq miles.  Buganda was surveyed and found to be 16,138 sq miles (9.689 in Mmengo; 3,781 in Masaka and 2,668 in Mubende).  The 1900 agreement stated that, any shortfall upon survey of Buganda would be deducted from the public 9,000 sq miles.  Therefore, right from go, that land was actually 5,538 Sq miles.  Any talk of 9,000 sq miles is, to use your word, idiotic.
2. As you know, 667 sq miles of the 5,538 sq miles (NOT 9,000) was in Buyaga and Bugangaizi.  The 1964 referendum returned that land to Bunyoro control.    It is, to use your word, idiotic for any body to hope that land was stolen by government from Buganda.  Completely idiotic.  Do we want to reverse the results of the referendum?  Anyhow, what was left then was 4,871 sq miles.
3.  Of the 4,871 sq miles, 644 sq miles went into the Buruli, Masaka, Singo ranching Scheme leaving 4,227 Square miles.
4.  That land remains under the control of the public political authority which, up to 1962 was the colonial government, hence the reference to Crown Land.  In 1962, the public political authority in Buganda was the federal state of Buganda, so it controlled that land.  In 1966 Uganda ceased to be semi-federal so all public land was reverted to central authorities.  How does a change in constitution amount to theft of 9,000 sq miles of land, which in fact did not even exist in the first place?  If you want Buganda to control the land, why don’t you secede and become an independnet state or launch a campaign for reinstating your federal status?
Anyhow, isn’t it idiotic to insistently refer to 9,000 sq miles when what existed in the first place was 5,538 sq miles?  Isn’t it even more idiotic to refer to the same 9,000 when what is actually at stake is 4,227 sq miles?

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

1900: HOW BATAKA LOST THEIR LAND TO THE UPDF

Standard
Below  is a transcript of a very important communication regarding how the majority Baganda lost their land in the wake of the 1900 agreement and the struggles they waged up to the late 1940s to have the injustice addressed.  I have seen some on the forum reducing matters of rearrangement of land ownership to the state of the mental health of the mothers of state notables etc (Musisi Bosco) or the “life style” of generals .  That is the context…

6 May 1921.

Kampala

Abataka to Chief Secretary, Government of Uganda

We have humbly addressed to you this letter while emploring you to kindly consider that is embodied therein and which have made us ap­proach His Excellency the Governor, and which runs thus:

We have eventually realized that a considerable length of time has been taken in our country of Buganda Kingdom, since the Abataka brought up their complaints for the re-acquisition of their Butaka lands: notwithstanding the fact that they have put up their rightful claims to the auth­ority of our Buganda Government which should do justice, nothing is yet done for them because of the reason that those who are expected to arbitrate are the ones who unlawfully acquired their fellowmen’s butaka lands by reason of the 1900 agreement: which provided that each one should survey his own estates which he held in possession. Having realized our rights as the lineage sons of the Bataka in Buganda; who pre­served our country from long ago on the system of butaka land tenure, have to be recognized as well as our ancestors.

We, some of the Abataka, having discovered that a serious mistake was made in this matter, and are of the opinion that unless we try to put it to an end, it will ruin our kingdom, therefore humbly pray you to grant what we are asking you in this petition – which is that, ‘We have formed an association with the aim of preserving our Butaka estates in Buganda and is known as Ekibiina ky’ Abaganda Abataka’ (The  Association of Baganda Ancestors or Bataka); and the following are the chief aims of its formation:

1. To start the reorganization of Butaka estates that existed before the advent to this country of His Majesty’s Government of England;

2. To give ,back all butaka estate’s to the original proprietors in accordance with our native customs;

3. To preserve and to see that each one gets his original butaka estate and the British Government ratifies and preserve same;

4. To recognize all’clan institutions that existed in the country and their relative duties to our Kabaka and for each clan to have a repre­sentative who airs her interests in the central legislature as we used to do in the olden times.

This association declares to be loyal to all good laws and to serve George V and all his successors as all other countries are directed to do in the Empire of His Majesty George V.

We humbly pray to the British Government to sympathetically con­sider the petition of the Abataka of Buganda, because of the grave error committed in our nation of Buganda and referred to above. We further humbly state that we realize that it will be difficult for our country to progress as is planned and promised by Government (unless the above error is remedied).

We have come to realize that the foundation of our country based on 1900 (agreement) tends to develop a smaller section of the country where­as the larger section is on the contrary discontented and petitioning about the “preservation of the good customs of Buganda: we visualize the difficulty in the way of progress by Government without the support of the Abataka who form the nation of Buganda. Without the Bataka, there is not Buganda. We assume and hope, Sir, that you will agree to grant what we ask you in this letter and to receive and entertain whatever we shall submit to you for consideration and to sympathize with our case, as without such assistance, we feel we shall not endure and win what we are aiming at; we have formed this association not because of planning a rapid progress, .hut solely to have a pr6per foundation laid upon which progress, may be based. The agreement to send up this petition has been reached at the time when the chief signatories to the 1900 agreement are still alive because after their departure, it will be most difficult for the younger generation to come to settlement of such historical affairs now in dispute.

We earnestly pray soliciting your sympathy for any of our petitions and for your excused in having appended our signatories on matters of such an important nature as these.

We are, Sir, Your humble servants:

Daudi Basudde

Yuda Musoke Kasa

The Secretaries of the Association of Bataka of Buganda.

Letter from Abu Mayanja to the Uganda Argus

Standard

CROSSING THE RUBICON

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

The threat by the Kabaka’s Government to sabotage direct elections for Legislative Council in Buganda is so full of ugly possibilities for the future that it is high time somebody did some very straight talking to the reactionary elements in Buganda who seem to imagine that somehow Buganda can contract out of the 20th century, -and revert to a system of administration when the efficiency of guns used to be tested on human beings.

These elements are ‘seeking to block the development of democracy in Buganda whilst pretending to pay lip-service to its principles. An example of this was the attempted intimidation of Makerere students by the Lukiko speaker when the former demonstrated against the reject of direct elec  tions to the Lukiko. The Katikiro’s admonition of those who dared to criticize the speech from the Throne is another pointer in the same direction.  So, too, is the recent statement by the clan leaders threatening those joining political parties with expulsion from the, clans. Nor is it purely coincidental that leaders of the political parties have been subjected to a spate of denigration and prosecutions – only to be acquitted after their reputations had been tarnished.  Sir, it is not at all fanciful to see in these and other instances the presence of a plan not only to sabotage democracy within Buganda, but also to seek to entrench the anti-democratic system by cutting Buganda from the rest of Uganda where it might be subjected to democratic influences. I am not saying that it is wrong for anyone to be against democracy; the world is only too full of examples of anti-demo­cratic regimes. What I am pleading for is that we should recognize these facts for what they are. I am also appealing to those who think in this way to come out in the open and tell the country exactly what they believe in.

If they want Buganda to go back to the 18th century, with the Kabaka ruling through hand-picked men and clan heads, let them say so – they owe it to the country to speak the truth. I also think that the notion that the Kabaka’s Government – which is but part of the Government of Uganda – can defy the latter is a matter so grave that it must be clarified and the correct position authoritatively stated.

There is grave responsibility which these events cast on the Protectorate Government. There is obviously a clash of objectives between those who want to see a democratic system developing in Buganda, and   those who do not.

It would be dangerously tempting for the Protectorate Government either to observe a benevolent neutrality, or to playoff one faction against the other.  I hope the Protectorate Government will realize that it has a duty to pursue with vigour those policies calculated to fulfill Britain’s mission in her dependencies – to take Uganda to democratic self-government.

I hope that the Government will take this attitude not only in the full confidence that history is on its side, but also with the knowledge that it has the unstinting support of the overwhelming majority of the educated Baganda who will struggle tooth and nail to resist the reimposition of feudal tyranny based on the debasement of the human personality and the vagaries of the so-called customary law.

I should like to warn our reactionary rulers that they are running a great danger of discrediting our traditional institutions, and thus making it impossible for many of us to reform and adapt what is good in them to the conditions of modern life.

I also wish to address a word of warning to the forward-looking, edu­cated Baganda.  I think we intellectuals (yes, though some people may laugh at this word) – I think we intellectuals have been much too timid so far. I think we have allowed ourselves the luxury of sleeping in strange beds for too long; I think we have compromised our position much too much; I think it is not too soon for us to declare from the hilltops what we believe in.

Speaking for myself I have crossed the Rubicon. I have set my face firmly against any autocracy whether it be foreign and imperialist or native and feudal. I stake my future and dedicate my life to the realization of democratic principles in my coup try no matter from which side the obstacles may emanate. This is a declaration of political faith, and I call on other intellectuals to do likewise.

Abu Kakyama Mayanja

Busujju.

History of the bahima and balaalo in Bugana

Standard

As we try to “dig dip” the history of Bahima and balaalo in Buganda, I will refer you to some readings that might give you some basic facts.  These might also be of some use for others that champion Buganda exclusionism and the anti-Hima and anti-Tutsi invective that abounds on the UAH forum:

  1. Reid, Richard J (2002), Political Power in Precolonial Buganda (Kampala: Fountain)…also available from James Currey and Ohio University Press.
  2. Kaggwa, Apollo Sir (1934), The customs of Buganda (New York: New York)
  3. Ashe, RP (1889), Two Kings of Buganda (London).
  4. Roscoe, J (1911), The Baganda: An Account of their Naive Customs and Beliefs (London).

And on your conviction that Baganda are pygymoid, I refer you to:

Mukasa, Ham (1904), Uganda ‘s Katikiro in England ; being the official account of his visit to the coronation of His Majesty King Edward VII ( London : Hutchinson ).

In Sir HH Johnston’s introduction to that book on page xvii, we read that, Apolo Kaggwa is “…a very tall and muscular man about 6ft 3in and of absolutely unmixed Negro race.”

And on your view that my reference to Bahima being part and parcel of Buganda history is contraband, on that same page of that book I quote above we read that Ham Mukasa is
“…somewhat lighter in colour and has about him a slight element of the aristocratic caste in Uganda (read Buganda) known as the Bayima or Bahima”
That corroborates the information some people discounted as “smuggling” Bahima and Balaalo into Buganda history.  And of course, they did not justify your use of the term “smuggling”: the best way to justify it would have been with counter evidence on the ethnicity and origins of Ham Mukasa’s mother, the Muhima lady Nyakazaana.

Note that Ham Mukasa was baptised the name “Ham”…that looks obvious.

“Ham Mukasa was born Mukasa Rwamujonjoza”: We have already ploughed through the “Rwamujonjoza” name.  What I forgot to mention is the meaning of that name and the language where it derives from.  The root word in the name is “jonjoza”.  It does not exist in Luganda.  It is a Runyankore word which means to bully or abuse.  Rwamujonjoza may mean child or descendant of a bully.  You can confirm this on page 54 of this dictionary that defines Kujonjoza:

Davis Margaret Beatrice (1938), A Lunyoro-Lunyankole-English and English-Lunyoro-Lunyankole Dictionary (Kampala: Uganda Book Shop)

In Runyoro, the verb “kujonjoza” is part of the vocabulary of metallurgy.  In iron working, it meant flattening smolten ore into a sheet that would eventually be moulded into swords (one sword is a Kitara) blades, spears, platters and digging implements.  Ham Mukasa may as well have had connections with Bunyoro-Kitara iron-working traditions.

When you scheme through Luganda grammar, you do not find “Rwa…” as one of the prefixes.  It is exclusively a Runyakitara prefix.  So, the name “Rwamujonjoza” has little to do with Kiganda origins, and is either from Nkore or Bunyoro-Kitara.  Given as we have seen, the origins of Ham Mukasa Rwamujonjoza’s mother, Nkore is more likely.

Mukasa was called Ham because of his Hamitic looks.  The  name itself is evidence of that background of Nyakazaana.  They could as well have called him Kaima/Kayima/ Muhima/Muyima Mukasa.

Note that Apollo Kagwa was a Muhima of the Nsenne clan, the migrants from Busongora….typical Musongora…angalia yeye!

If readers can, look up the history of the Nsenene clan of Buganda, and ask them why the title of the Ssaza Chief of Mawokota (one of the three core counties of Buganda) is “Kaima” up to now.  Ask them about the first Kaima that was to be aloocated a large estate in North Mawokota, the only known grazing grounds in the Mawokota-Kyaddondo-Busiro heartland of the nascent Buganda.  Kaima means Kahima or Kahuma, “the Hamite”.

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

Relationship between Himas and Buganda

Standard

1/7 mine is not an attempt to re-write Buganda history but to tell it as it is in response to some Baganda’s Hima-hate campaign which will unfortunately wind up at the Buganda royal house.

2/7 Tracing the ancestry of Nyakazaana was not an end in itself but a means of shedding light on the basic facts that we disregard when we are stoking antipathy against certain groups.  Key here is the extent to which groups have intermingled over time, and in case of Buganda, the extent to which it is indeed a bundle of bundles, one of which bundles are Bahima. One could almost argue that Buganda is a bundle of Bahima and balaalo, contrary to what many of you think.

3/7 Look at this: the mother of Kabaka Mutebi I, Wanyana, was the daughter of Mugalula Buyonga, the founder of the Nseenene (conjugated from Nswa enene) clan.  Mugalula, originally called Mugarra, a Muhima from Busongora and a mulaalo, moved with others from Busongora, with their herds of cattle and settled in Bweera via Buddu, then eventually moving to Nakanoni village in Gomba and on to Kisozi.

4/7 One of Mugalula’s brothers, Kalyebala (whose Kiganda’s corruption is “Kalibbala) became the chief mulaalo of Chwa I, Kabaka Kintu’s successor, was to be promoted to the chieftainship of Kayima or Kaima (in Runyakitara, part of which Rusongora is, Kahuma or Kahima, the cattle keeper or mulaalo). The Kayima or Kaima is still the title of the Chief of the Ssaza of Mawokoto (just like we have the Mugema of Busiro, the Kasujju of Busujju, the Katambala of Butambala; the Pokino of Buddu, the Sekibobo of Kyaggwe etc).  All those were Bahima.  I am sure you know that, those of Nsenene clan that lost their herds of cattle to rinderpest in the 1880s and resorted to crop rearing are now called Baima abatasunda, that is, the “Bahima that no longer churn milk”.

5/7 As Mr Kateregga has been telling us here, Mutesa I’s mother, Ndwaddewazziba, was a Muhima; Prince Badru Kakungulu’s mother was a Muhima, Prince John Kintu Wassajja’s mother was a Muhima, Princess Teyeggala’s mother was a Muhima, and as we have shown you here at UAH, Prince Jjunju Suna Kiwewa’s mother is a Mututsi, the Muhima equivalent of Rwanda-Burundi.  The whole process of the arrival on the scene of your likely next Kabaka has been a process of concentrating Hima/Tutsi blood at Mmengo.  You do not have to hate or love the fact.  That is how it is.

6/7 So, in your current royal family, there is Hima blood coming from deep, deep on the Kabaka’s paternal side, and there is Hima/balaalo blood from the Kabaka’s maternal side, in the line of Zakaria Sensalire himself, Ham Mukasa’s father, and on the side of Nyakazaana, Ham Mukasa’s mother.

7/7 Digging up family histories should not trouble you alot.  It is family histories that make up clan histories, and then community histories.  We are simply trying to understand what we are as communities.

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

Note:Katerega works for NewVision and a regular contributor to the UAH forum

Relationship between Nyakazaana and Buganda kingdom

Standard
Dear Baganda,
1/7 What do you mean by “Nabakooba is a partisan Muhima on a pro ‘Nyakazaana’ anti people mission” ?  You mean support for Nyakazaana is pro-Hima and probably anti-Ganda?
2/7 Bahima particularly Maama Nyakazaana, have given Buganda Kabakas and Chiefs.  The prominent Nyakazaana is of the Bahinda clan of the Royal family of Nkore (“Ankole”) and the earlier you got to know her, the better for you in your effort to be in good stead with Buganda royalty.  Thus far, things may not be good for you.
3/7 This is what I mean: Nyakazaana was the wife of Zachary Kiwanuka Sensalire, and together, they were the parents of Ham Mukasa Rwamujonjoza (1871-1956), one of the greatest sons of Buganda.  Ham Mukasa as you know was the Sekibobo of Buganda (i.e., the Chief of Kyaggwe), the longest serving chief in the history of Buganda.  Zakariya Kiwanuka Sensalire was himself a descendant of a long line of Sensalires, i.e. heads of the balalo clan of Njovu who are known to have gained prominence right from the days of Kabaka Kintu as the official balaalo.  Up to now, it remains the duty of the Njoveu clan to educate every new Kabaka on the art of bulaalo (herding).  Like other balaalo, Sensalire married from among his fellow Bahima, hence the Nyakazaana that you are now vilifying.
4/7 Nyakazaana, a Muhima, was the mother of Ham Mukasa as we have seen.  Ham Mukasa, with his first wife Anna Mawemuko, then went ahead to father  Victoria Sarah Nalwanga (b. 1910).  Nalwanga was the mother of the two Kisosonkoles, Sarah and Damali, the wives of Kabaka Edward Mutesa II.
5/7 Sarah Kisosonkole, (the great grand daughter of Nyakazana), was Kabaka Mutebi’s mother. The Kiganda version of the Hima name, Nakazana has stuck around up to now. Kabaka Mutebi’s first Namasole was known as Edith Nakazana.  She passed away recently in London, I think on 02 Sep 2008, and you may have even attended her funeral service!
6/7 So, by vilifying Nyakazaana are you may be launching a calculated assault of Kabaka Mutebi’s parentage or you really do not know what you are talking about.  From my instinct, I suspect the latter.
7/7 Baganda had better educate you on the roots of Buganda royalty or start being weary of you as a “green grass in the snake”.  Your anti-Nyakazaana vitriol is as venomous as it is inimical to Buganda.

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick

Note:Nabakooba is Uganda Police spokesperson

Mutesa II family challenges Kabaka’s legality

Standard

Monitor Online

Mutesa II family challenges Kabaka’s legality

http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/news/Mutesa_II_family_challenges_Kabaka_s_legality_82636.shtml

Posted in: News

By Lominda Afedraru
Apr 4, 2009 – 2:00:35 AM


Kampala

The Family of Sir Edward Mutesa II has petitioned the Constitutional Court challenging the legality of Kabaka Ronald Mutebi as King of Buganda.

Ms Sarah Namasole Natolo who claims to be the mother of late Kabaka Mutesa II and Prince David Simbwa, the son of Kabaka Daudi Chwa claim when the government passed the 1967 Constitution, it tampered with the kingdom constitution that provided for the election of the Kabaka.

The petitioners claim Article 2 of the Buganda Kingdom Constitution states that “the Kabaka who is ruler of the Buganda Kingdom shall be elected by the Majority Votes of the Lukiiko”.

They argue that although any prince including the Kabaka is entitled to nominate or choose his own personal successor upon death, the Kabaka remains to be elected by majority votes of the Lukiiko.

According to the petitioners the past Kabaka’s of Buganda nominated their personal successors but the Lukiiko went ahead to elect other people.

IS THE “NAMASOLE” ALWAYS THE KABAKA’S BIOLOGICAL MOTHER?

Standard

I am seeing vials of wrath being emptied on Sarah Namasole Natolo.  Some have dismissed her as “Butabika”, others like Mr Kyijomanyi have advised the pressmen that reported the intra-Mengo wrangles over land to go to Namirembe where Irene Druscilla Namaganda, Kabaka Mutesa II’s mother was burried.

The problem here seems to be mixing up the biological mother of the Kabaka with the office of the Namasole.  In fact, Irene Druscilla Namaganda was not the Namasole.  Was she?

1/4 In other words, you have corrected the wrong impression created by some forumists that “Namasole = Kabaka’s biological mother”. That fallacy is being thrown up by those that want to silence Sarah Namasole Natolo regarding her recent complaints on land.

2/4 For Irene Druscilla Namaganda, we need to remind ourselves of the events that followed 1939, the year when Kabaka Chua died.  The queen sought to remarry and that caused a serious storm in Mengo (equalled only by claims that Kabaka Chua had fathered a certain gentleman called Idi Amin, resulting in the breakdown of the marriage between Amin’s parents).

3/4 Irene Druscilla Namaganda as queen was not supposed to remarry because the Kabaka could not call another man (especially a mukopi) his father.  It was also deemed to be a taboo for the kabaka to have brothers who were not of the royal lineage which would tend to confuse future successions..you know the saying that “Kabaka taddwaako mukopi” – (Kabaka cannot have a commoner for a sibling).

4/4 Mutesa II was the first king to compromise on that custom.  He allowed his mother to remarry, and still there was considerable uproar in the kingdom. To quell this uproar, the official duties of the Namasole were transferred from Lady Namaganda to her older sister, Perepetwa Nnaabaweesi.  In other words, Lady Namaganda eventually lost the Namasoleship, and not because she died, but because she remarried.

Lance Corporal (Rtd) Otto Patrick