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

By R. Odong P'Duny

I have read with interest the summarised interpretation of the historical events of the 60s by Godfrey Sserunkuma Lule, the former Attorney General on the federo website. And my view is rather that for any squabble to grow into a row, steadily progressing into a feud that finally culminates into open violent enmity, there must always be a significant starting point. Any commission of inquiry that renders irrelevant initial portion of the sequence events may as well have a lopsided conclusion in its report.

The main issue is the chronology of events: which of them in the sequence was causative of the effects that continue to haunt our politics today? I continue to be confused because the interpretation of Barrister Lule contradicts those of other commentators, and for a person like you (I suppose) and I who never experienced the time, you can appreciate my argument that it is indeed difficult to point a straight finger. Often times our analysis is clouded by our current ideological and/or caucus orientation.

I have read quite widely political critiques of the 60s and I have found that all these critics seem to agree on the genesis of enmity between UPC and Buganda – the issue of the lost counties. They all unambiguously conclude that the aftermath of the 1964 referendum left a bitter taste in the mouth of Buganda. This was after Mutesa tried unsuccessfully to 'undermine the constitution by constitutional means' to sway the results of the referendum to Buganda favour. Thereafter this factual event, political critics have tended to fall straight into pro- or anti-caucuses. For instance, the murderous onslaught on November 10, 1964 in Nakulabye by armed police (or was it a containment of a revolt mounted by agitated Baganda youths) is interpreted widely and differently by historical analysts. As a matter of fact, consequent events that disastrously changed the course of Ugandan history have been and continue to be interpreted by scholars, politicians, cultural leaders, religious leaders, etc., but with their feet deeply buried in the trenches of the alignments they represent.

Some of the notable events were:

1.      1966 Feb 22nd suspension of the 1962 constitution,

2.      1966 Feb 26th promotion and appointment of Colonel Idi Amin to the rank of Major General, and to be the commander of the army,

3.      1966 Mar 3rd humiliating dismissal of Kabaka Freddie as President of Uganda, including the Vice President; the usurpation of power of President by Dr. Obote,

4.      1966 Apr 15th formal overthrow of the 1962, consequently the promulgation of a pigeon hole constitution also called ‘revolutionary constitution’,

5.      1966 May 19th historical Lukiiko resolution demanding central government to leave Buganda within 5 days of notice,

6.      1966 May 24th attack on Lubiri that led to exiling of Kabaka Freddie,

7.      1966 Jun 1st mysterious (?) death of Daudi Ochieng after admission in Mulago Hospital,

8.      1967 Sep promulgation of the Republican Constitution.

From this chronology of events I can clearly see various political caucuses and alignments. Some of these commentators knowingly choose these distorted positions in order to advance a political propaganda, whereas others are honest about their interpretations, however wrong they are and finally the last group mostly criminals, take defensive positions to avoid future prosecution. Very few Ugandan commentators tow the balanced line, and I would want to stand to be counted among this composition. In my view, for Uganda to fully heal from the nightmare of the 60s, protagonists must stand straight, confront the bitter 'oput' and take a good sip of it, and where necessary bend the spears into a U.

I agree that this discussion may be one of the political stalemates in Uganda. For that matter, I must say I strongly salute the constitutional spirit Kabaka Freddie showed when he filed a constitutional petition against Dr. Obote's unconstitutional usurpation of powers. Obote's political manoeuvre to legally outsmart the Kabaka's petition by staging an 'illegal' revolution or a constitutional coup is unforgivable by any democratic yardstick. Nonetheless, the then Chief Justice dismissed Kabaka's petition on the basis that the petition lost ground in the face of a 'new government' (read revolutionarist regime). Imagine, these callous manipulations!

According to Godfrey Sserunkuma Lule,

"The truth is that the abrogation of the 1962 Constitution by Obote is what led to the Lukiiko resolution. When he single handedly abrogated the 1962 Constitution, Obote removed the authority by which he ruled and placed his government on Buganda soil. The Lukiiko showed consummate knowledge and adherence to constitutionalism and clout. Only the Buganda Lukiiko then raised a voice against tyranny"

In regard to this event of pursuing the constitutional path, Buganda showed strong adherence to constitutionalism and clout, and indeed that was very nationalistic. It must always be emphasized for the purpose of straightening our history, that when Obote finally abrogated the 1962 constitution, Buganda was the only democratic lonely voice that resisted this blatant excess. However, this is quite cheeky and confusing – you must have read how the then Katikkiro of Buganda, Mayanja Nkangi failed (or simply refused) to sign the Lukiiko's condemnation memorandum against Obote's action. Oh, oh, all the Mengo bees came out of their hives to sting Nkangi's face! The man is still alive, eating and kicking! What is his view to all these things we are trying to scratch our heads about?!

Yet said, I believe despondency mixed with excessive pride drove Buganda to make the infamous May 19th expulsion resolution. For this was unconstitutional! It should be argued that whereas Dr. Obote the person, Dr. Obote the PM and president of UPC headed a coalition government, these two political parameters singly or compoundly did not constitute the central government with its sovereignty and rights, in which these political parameters were merely but subsets. Buganda's resolution was, in my humble view, too desperate and myopic. Because it never separated the core and the periphery. Obote and his callous government were merely the periphery, and their mistakes as a government in power did not warrant the unseating of the core.

A strong memo calling for popular civil disobedience, severing of the coalition of which KY was party and demand for the resignation of the PM and the whole UPC government could be regarded in my opinion as alternatively democratic.

But then one could easily argue that these are too soft resolutions for the already marauding Obote and his UPC government. Yes, indeed, but there is one problem that surrounded the KY caucus – they were very unpopular even in Buganda as was manifested in the 1961 election; notwithstanding, the handpicking nature of 1962 elections which was deliberate to deny DP votes in Buganda. On this background, therefore, it is understandable that Mengo was too desperate for a way forward having found herself between the rock (Obote) and the hard place (majority disenfranchised Baganda electorates).

History has righteously condemned Obote, just like history will condemn any current and future manipulators. History must also be kind enough to condemn those who helped to misguide the otherwise democratic KY/Mengo caucus. For their equally unconstitutional manoeuvre helped the trigger-happy UPC government. This is the fundamental issue.

NB: OPUT is a concoction of succulent calabash (an African climber fruit, akin to pumpkin), fresh sponge and wild yellow 'ocok' (Acholi) or 'entula' (Kiganda), which are all on their own merits really, really wacky bitter. It is used in Acholi reconciliation ritual where the protagonists would come, stand straight in front of full gourd, swear to the gods ('JOK') against ever crossing each other again. While the spears are bent and broken, they would finally drink ('MATO') this bitter and repulsive concoction until the gourd is empty.