The American constitution was a product of wisdom and statesmanship of
its framers over 200 years ago.
Unlike the American constitution, the Uganda independence constitution
of 1962 resulted from a process which was marred by intrigues, revenge
and deceit whose effects spilled over into the independence period.
This meant that Ugandans did not enjoy the lilies of freedom for
almost the first 25 years as politicians of every hew plotted and
conspired against each other and the successful ones wreaked vengeance
on their opponents by detaining them without trial or putting them out
completely. In this way, almost every family in the country
experienced the effects of bad governance either directly or
vicariously through relatives or friends.
To understand our long trudge to independence one has to start with
the deportation to Britain on November 30, 1953 of the Kabaka of
Buganda, Edward Mutesa following a disagreement with the governor, Sir
Andrew Cohen, regarding future constitutional developments. The
proposed developments included the introduction of the east African
federation along the lines of the one in central Africa. Mutesa's
rustication stirred the country as it was seen as a sign of Britain's
insensitivity to local aspirarations.
A delegation of five which was sent to London by the Buganda lukiko
succeeded in convincing both the British government and public of the
folly of the governor's action but the idea of the mighty Britania
being defeated by an African potentate was difficult to swallow. This
led to an impasse which was only broken by a leading Oxford University
africanist, Professor Margerry Pelham who suggested in a letter to the
Times of April 11, 1954 that a constitutional expert should be sent to
Uganda to work out a new
dispensation.
Pelham's idea was bought by the British government and as a result, an
Australia professor Sir Keith Hancock who was at the time head of the
Institute of International Studies was sent to Uganda to chair a
committee of 12 which discussed new constitutional proposals. The
committee's report formed the basis of a new Buganda agreement and the
constitution of 1955 as well as the return of the Kabaka.
Of interest to the rest of the country was the agreement that the next
major stage in constitutional development would be in 1961. This
agreement flagged 1961 as the year the country would get at least its
self-government. The British government's plan was to work towards
that goal through systematic evolution in the legislative council, the
country's parliament at the time.
However, events conspired to make the journey to that goal rather
problematic. At the time three political parties controlled the
political scene namely the Uganda National Congress (UNC) the largest
party, the Democratic Party and the Progressive Party. Unfortunately,
the UNC lost its way in 1957 and splintered into two parties, the new
one being the
United Congress Party.
Earlier, all the political parties united to fight a proposal by the
Buganda lukiko to distribute 150 square miles among “loyal
subjects†and the outcry the campaign raised led to the Kabaka
ordering Mengo to drop the idea.
Mengo never forgave the parties and it embarked on a campaign against
them accusing them of being anti-Kabaka and persecuted the party
leaders in a senseless manner which in the end debilitated the parties
in Buganda especially when Mengo convinced the governor that it was
the only authority which could discuss Buganda's affairs.
The result of Mengo's policies rendered political parties almost
irrelevant in our constitutional development.
In his recent book Social Origins of Violence in Uganda, Professor A.
B. K. Kasozi tells us that at this time there were four groups of
political players in Buganda namely the nationalists, the educated
elite, the neo-traditionalists and the catholic elite, a
classification which could be replicated countrywide. To these groups
could be added the elected members of the legistive council who
included such people as Apollo Milton Obote, John Babiha, George
Magezi, Cuthbert Obwangor and others.
The future of the country was largely determined by the way these
groups interfaced in the run-up to independence. Three developments
took place which determined the future of the country and who would
rule it in the end. First the neo-traditionalists at Mengo followed an
isolationist policy and negotiated directly with the colonial
government something which did not go well with the other groups.
Secondly, in order to regain the initiative from Mengo, the
nationalists united in the Uganda National Movement which declared a
trade boycott. Only DP and Jolly Joe Kiwanuka's faction of UNC which
included Obote kept out of the movement.
The government reacted to the boycott by deporting the movement
leaders. In order to fill the gap which was created, the elected
members of the legislative Council (Legco) formed themselves into the
Uganda Peoples Party which proved to be ineffective and through the
efforts of Barbara Saben who was a member of the legco and a fan of
Obote, the party joined with Obote's faction of UNC to form the Uganda
Peoples Congress with a declared anti-Buganda stance.
It was now clear that the struggle for the country's leadership was
going to be between the UPC and the DP with the neo-traditionalist
playing the leadership role in Buganda, a situation that suggested
that any future government would have to be a coalition with all that
it portended.
DP's Ben Kiwanuka refused to compromise with this and although the
party won the elections in 1961 which were boycotted in Buganda, the
party lost out at the constitutional conference in London in July 1962
at which Obote's UPC formed an alliance with Mengo in which Mengo
agreed to deliver all Buganda's 21 MPs to UPC.
To achieve the objective of defeating DP out of power, a conspiracy to
which the British government must have been a tacit player was
conceived to hold another general election just before independence
and to have Buganda's MPs indirectly elected by the Lukiko which would
ensure victory for UPC.
Thus, a pseudo-socialist party joined hands with a neo-traditionalist
establishment to lead us into independence on the back of a tricky
arrangement.
The United States DOD has defined an occupied territory as:
Territory under the authority and effective control of a belligerent armed force. The term is not applicable to territory being administered pursuant to peace terms, treaty, or other agreement, express or implied, with the civil authority of the territory.
We argue that even a casual but sober review of Uganda’s political history should lead to the conclusion that the aggrieved people of Buganda, under their Kabaka (king) have a case to declare their nation an occupied territory under the authority of a belligerent armed force.
Fact: Buganda has internationally recognizable boundaries that in 1967 were not in dispute by any of her neighbors (Tanzania, Busoga, Bunyoro, Ankole, Tooro and Lango).
Fact: The natives of Buganda constitute a distinguishable nation, with distinct cultural practices, national language and customary laws that developed over more than 500 years ago.
Fact: In 1962 the civil government of Buganda, headed by Kabaka of Buganda, entered a legal agreement (Uganda Constitution of 1966) with other nations and populations in colonial Uganda to federate and gain independence as a single country.
Fact: In 1966 Prime Minister Obote and his supporters, without consulting Buganda’s civil government or population, illegally overthrew the Uganda Constitution with the use of armed forces. The then Kabaka, Muteesa Walugembe, was exiled to the UK where he died under suspicious circumstances.
Fact: Between 1966 and 1986 various warlords, including Obote, Idi Amin and Museveni captured Uganda state power through the violent and illegal use of arms.
Fact: After Yoweri Museveni captured power by the force of arms in 1986 he organized an exercise to develop a new national constitution that would return the governance of Uganda to a legal status. The flagship activity of the constitution making exercise was the independednt Odoki Commission (leg by Justice Odoki) which collected information that would be properly address the aspirations of all the people in Uganda.
Fact: According to the “Odoki Report”, over 90% of the people of Buganda explicitly demanded that they be governed under federal form of government which prevailed before the overthrow of the 1966 Uganda constitution.
Fact: Museveni, Bidandi-Ssali and their supporters illegally (under natural law) broke the terms of the constitution making process and administratively invalidated the demands of the people of Buganda and introduced an experimental substitute that they dubiously name “decentralization”.
Fact: Since 1986 has, through decrees and targeted laws, constructed a legal system that is selectively punitive to Buganda, her people and her civil leadership, the Kabaka institution. One example is the currency reform decree which devalued the Uganda Shilling by 90% in an environment where Baganda held over 60% of all cash wealth in Uganda. Another example is the 1998 Land Act which set “mailo” land rent (nearly exclusivel found in Buganda) to less than 1$ (US) regardless of size and freely gave away Buganda’s 9,000 square miles customary lands but not those of other nationalities.
Fact: Museveni, Tinyefunza and their accomplices have issued numerous public statements over radio in newspapers threatening to “destroy” elements of Buganda’s civil leaders, calling Buganda leaders “hyenas”, reminding Baganda that “you don’t have the guns”, telling Kabaka Mutebi to fire Buganda leaders “who don’t agree with Government” and even reminding Baganda of the “1966 crisis” when the 1962 constitution was overthrown.
Fact: Buganda’s civil leaders (Kabaka’s Government), with overwhelming support, are only demanding that Museveni and his supporters stop the injustices again the people of Buganda – return the 9,000 square miles and other properties and restore the only form of governance that Buganda has ever willing accepted (federal).
Over the weekend of July 19, 2008 the people of Buganda held a national conference (Lukiiko Ttabamiruka) to discuss the issues of land, poverty and governance which confront them. The Uganda government seems to have underestimated the conference until, on July 18, 2008, one Buganda official, Lubega Ssegona, eloquently’s spoke about its expected results in front of Government agents.
Unexpectedly powerful speeches by Kabaka Mutebi, his wife Nnabagereka Nagginda and others seem to have created virtual panic among Government officials and their Baganda collaborators, resulting in one of the most ill conceived political decisions by Museveni since he came to power. The government arrested Betty Nambooze, Peter Mayiga and Lubega Ssegona (detainded just before the meeting) to preempt further political damage. And in the process handed Baganda nationalists the strongest case so far that the Uganda government considers any expression of Buganda nationalism as a crime. Evidence that Buganda is all but occupied by a belligerent force that will not tolerate and use force against the national aspirations of the native population. Isn’t Buganda under armed occupation?
Forum 
