Politics

The Land Amendment Bill; Buganda’s blessing in disguise



Omar Kalinge Nnyago



The Kabaka of Buganda Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II, in one of his sternest and shortest (4 minutes) speeches at the opening of the Lukiiko this week, asserted that the premise for the existence of the Kingdom of Buganda was land (ttaka).



It is for this reason that the king was also the Ssabataka (custodian of the land). In other words, there cannot be a Buganda Kingdom without territory.



This is important, especially since past Buganda kings expanded the kingdom through blood and sweat, through conquests, as they had an absolute right to use violence and an uncontested right to make war or peace. Suuna fought more than 16 external wars.



His son, Mutesa I, conducted 66 documented external raids and wars (Kasirye, Abateregga ku Namulondo ya Buganda, 1955). Buganda was then a military machine that terrorised and spread its violence to most of the area adjacent to Lake Kyoga in the north, the river Kagera in the south and as far as Lake George in the west.



The rise of Kabalega in Bunyoro and his ability to build a standing army, the Abarusura, tempered this violence but failed to destroy it (Kasozi, The Social origins of Violence in Uganda, 1994).



This phase in the history of Buganda Kingdom had followed an earlier one in which the Kabaka also has absolute right to kill his subjects. Namugala (1734-64) killed a whole group of the Abatamanyanganda and buried two hundred of them in a mass grave.



Kyabaggu executed hundreds of Ssese Islanders for embarrassing him publicly at a function at Nakasero Hill. Suuna II slaughtered 300 Bawambya because one of them allegedly stole his firewood.



There were also many official execution sites all over the country at places like Nalulangadde, Wabitembe, Nakinziro, Busanji, Kitinda, Mpiimerebera (Busega), Kubamitwe, Kijabi and others (Kagwa, Ekitabo Ky’abassekabaka be’Buganda, 1901).



So, Buganda’s history is one of changes. Today, the Kabaka has no authority to kill his subjects nor to wage war. However, he has remained with the obligation to defend the earlier historic gains of the kingdom. That, it seems, is the crux of the matter. The Kabaka of Buganda cannot remain indifferent to land – Buganda’s land.



President Museveni miscalculated when he floated the Land (Amendment) Bill. He knew for certain that Buganda would oppose it. But that the other parts of Uganda would interprete Buganda’s opposition to the amendment as another attempt by ‘arrogant’ and ‘intolerant’ federo-seeking Baganda to prevent others from owning land in Buganda.



He thought that the other parts would isolate Buganda by supporting the amendment. He was wrong. The amendment instead received opposition from the whole country, notably from the no-nonsense Acholi sub-region.



Secondly, President Museveni has failed to understand the difference between Mengo, the bureaucracy at the seat of the Buganda Kingdom, and Buganda – that vast region in the heart of Uganda in which Baganda and non-Baganda happily live.



When he is given to believing that he should tame Mengo, Museveni misses the point again. It is the residents of Buganda whom he is really up against, not Mengo.



One such resident of Buganda is his own Vice President. Prof. Gilbert Bukenya, who over the weekend made some carefully worded but significantly uncharitable comments on the Land Bill. At a church service at Rubaga Cathedral, Bukenya opined that the Bill was hurriedly drafted without following proper procedures (Land Bill hollow-VP, Daily Monitor February 12, 2008).



Museveni has blamed opposition politicians for using Mengo to fight his policies. In the coming days he will have to tell the nation whether his VP is an opposition politician too.



By seeking to create a much weaker Buganda, the president has helped the Baganda overcome their unenviable stereotype as sub-imperialists, by enhancing their identification with hitherto Buganda-unfriendly communities in Uganda.



The typically British divide and rule practice of using Baganda agents as sub-imperialists to help establish colonial rule placed the Baganda at the receiving end of not only anti-colonial violence, but also post independence violence. This in part bred resentment in some parts of Uganda against the Baganda.



Now, seeing the Acholi, Langi, Karimojong and others standing shoulder to shoulder with the Baganda to oppose a suspicious law is symptomatic of a healing nation. This is one of the many cases of “unintended consequences” of political actions.



Museveni intends to cut Buganda to size. He ends up making Buganda acceptable to the whole country. The animosity between Buganda and the North melts- for they now have a common agenda.



But what if the Bill sails through, like the other obnoxious No-Presidential- Term Limit Bill did in the 7th Parliament? Anyone hoping to protect the country from plunder through legislation (recall the disposal of public assets for which no accountability is forthcoming?), should plan action from the premise that the bill will pass anyway.



In war, it is the “worst case scenario” that provides the best motivation for victory. Those opposed to the amendment should visualise its passing into law as the justifiable and rational beginning of that irreversible struggle to return Uganda to Ugandans.



From Monitor Feb 15 2008