There is no mischief in Buganda’s wishes

 Home | News | Discussion | FAQ | Federal Model | Regional Models | Buganda | What's New

Five top Movement leaders including Vice President Speciosa Kazibwe, Minister for the Presidency Gilbert Bukenya, Minister for Local Government Bidandi Ssali; Presidential Advisor on the Media John Nagenda and Director for Information at the Movement Secretariat Ofwono-Opondo have lashed out at Buganda’s proposals to the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC).

Kazibwe is reported to have said she has no time for federalism and that she hates people who hoodwink others (presumably she means the Mengo leadership). Bidandi is quoted as having declared that “ Buganda will not be granted federal status”. While in his usual condescending fashion, Nagenda says that agitators for federalism are myopic. The message from these circles cannot be mistaken.

Of course, these leaders have a right not to support Buganda or its proposals for federalism. However, they do not have the right to distort its views let alone malign, disparage and confuse the public about its proposals. It’s apparent that their comments seek to hijack and toxicate the constitutional review process. Furthermore they seriously prejudice Buganda’s case – as well that of like-minded Ugandans before the CRC. It’s the Movement government that established the CRC – with the aim of addressing those issues that Ugandans felt were not properly expressed in the 1995 Constitution. It cannot be the same Movement leaders to gag and ridicule groups that submit proposals to this body. Unless, of course, the CRC was set up by the Movement to “hoodwink” the public (sic).

At another level, it’s clear that the said Movement leaders have not taken time to read and understand Buganda’s proposals. They thus confuse and distort issues such as the monarchy’s role in the proposed federal setup. Bukenya argues that he loves his king so much he would not want him involved in politics. Good. In fact, a discerning look at Buganda’s proposals will show the Honorable Minister that Buganda’s position on this point meets with his own.

Regrettably, Nagenda’s dismissive opinion on federalism heavily dwells more on the form of the presentation of Buganda’s views (particularly the long procession from Bulange to the International Conference Center by thousands of people), rather than the true substance of Buganda’s proposals. How and why can he possibly be so rash and dismissive? For the vice president – one of the champions of the shaky Busoga Charter – it would seem that bashing Buganda Kingdom for any reason any day is a favorite pastime. Otherwise, how does one explain her perennial and unjustified attacks on the institution?

Many Ugandan’s both within and beyond the ancient kingdom support Buganda’s proposals. The [Chief] Justice Benjamin Odoki Commission Report demonstrated that the overwhelming majority in Buganda and the rest of Uganda favor a federal form of government – as opposed to decentralization based on districts. Incidentally, it is obvious that the decentralization project – especially its economics - has been a disaster. Thus, these views ought to be de-politicized and taken soberly because they are made in good faith and represent well considered opinions of the people. Uganda’s Constitution is a document for the people of Uganda. It is these people – and not a few powerful individuals - who should determine the form of governance for the country.

Buganda trusts that this point is not lost on any one. Accordingly, the CRC should be given a chance to consider the people’s views without bias. In any case the said top leaders also have the right to submit their views to the CRC. They, like Buganda, should use “the right forum”. Alternatively, they may wait and debate the CRC’s recommendations in Cabinet or in Parliament.

Several fears have been raised on the substance of Buganda’s proposals, the most emotive of which is the issue of Kampala. Buganda recognizes that Kampala City constitutes the Capital City of Uganda. Its proposals neither seek to usurp nor control it. Rather, because Kampala is in the heart of its cultural heritage, it seeks a simple recognition that the city lies in a geographical part of Uganda known as Buganda. This is quite harmless.

If necessary, let laws be put in place to ensure that Buganda does not claim control over the city. In the past the Government of Uganda has paid Buganda Kingdom a nominal sum of Shs 1 for the one square mile that constituted Kampala. Entebbe was also leased by the central government from Buganda Kingdom for a long period.

However no one has ever been thrown out on account of being a non-Muganda.

Buganda strongly believes that federalism offers the best way forward for Uganda’s sustainable development. The kingdom invites constructive debate on how it should be implemented. Buganda seeks agreement with the central government over mundane matters such as agriculture and forestry; education services; regional planning; regional medical and health services, construction and maintenance of roads local land administration and traditional and cultural matters amongst others. Where is the problem? There is no mischief in Buganda’s proposals as some falsely claim.

The issue of land in Buganda ought be seen in context. It’s a well-known fact that Buganda has many non-Baganda landlords. Buganda’s proposals do not intend to take away land belonging to non-Baganda. This would be wrong and illegal. To the contrary Buganda invites - and has historically welcomed - new settlements and investments for development. On the 9,000 square miles of land - history shows that former president Dr Apollo Milton Obote’s government illegally usurped the said land. It’s only fair and just that it be returned to its true owner(s).

The people in Buganda hold the strong view that Uganda should not be held hostage of the 1966 constitutional crisis precipitated by the leadership of the day. Indeed, they consider that the CRC should help the country expunge all the ghosts of 1966 and move on. It’s improper therefore, that some Movement leaders should attempt to truncate this process. If the country is to embark on enduring democratic and constitutional reform, then people’s views to the CRC should be heard objectively and fairly.

The Monitor, February 11, 2003 11:17:41