Is Buganda condemned to repeat the past??Earlier this year, Mmengo published the August 1, 2013 Agreement between the President of Uganda Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and the Kabaka of Buganda Ronald Muwenda Mutebi II. The Agreement gives one a sense of déjà vu—Mmengo has cut deals in the past that have ended up costing Buganda in major ways. Take the 1900 Buganda Agreement. It followed on the heels of the mistakes made under Ssekabaka Danieri Basammula Mwanga II, which gave Buganda to Britain for a song. Sir Apollo Kaggwa, and to a lesser extent Stanislaus Mugwanya and Zakaria Kisingiri, facilitated the 1900 Agreement. In that Agreement, the people of Buganda lost 50% of their community land to colonial institutions, religious institutions, and key collaborators including Kaggwa, Mugwanya, and Kisingiri. The Agreement also impoverished Abataka, and its fallout is still felt in land squabbles Baganda have to live with today. In 1953, a crisis arose when Ssekabaka Sir Edward Frederick Muteesa II refused to accept a plan putting Buganda within a unitary Uganda. Muteesa insisted that Britain recognize Buganda as an autonomous kingdom nation. On November 30th, Governor Sir Andrew Cohen deposed and deported him to Britain. Thus, the October 18, 1955 Buganda Agreement ended this 1953-55 Crisis, permitting Ssekabaka Muteesa to return from exile. But that was a somewhat hollow victory, because this Agreement violated Buganda’s native constitution (Ennono). It imposed a British-style constitutional monarchy which took power away from the Kabaka. When Buganda and the other parties agreed the 1962 Independence Constitution, she was forced to abandon her quest to regain autonomy as a kingdom nation. In a lopsided exchange, key prominent Mmengo officials got senior appointments in the Uganda Government’s first administration. Furthermore, the 1962 Agreement offered Ssekabaka Muteesa II the position of first President of Uganda. This act breached a centuries’ old tradition that forbade a Kabaka being employed or being a co-worker of commoners (bakopi). Unfortunately, one of those bakopi would exile him back to Britain. Then there were the “bush agreements.” From 1981-82, the Bataka agreed to support Mr. Museveni and his group during the liberation war, because he promised to restore Buganda’s kingship after victory. In the end, the bush war came with a cost of hundreds of thousands of Baganda lives, especially in the Luweero Triangle. Thanks to those lives, the NRA/M ultimately prevailed and took power in early 1986. We now have Mmengo’s August 1st Agreement with President Museveni. The document itself shows no sense of urgency. So, why did Mmengo commit Buganda in this way without input from Lukiiko, Abataka, Abalangira, and ordinary Baganda? The document’s central subject, Ebyaffe, is not news. Baganda have waited 48 years for the return of Ebyaffe. Children born when Ebyaffe became an issue are nurturing grandchildren. There is no nice way to put it—the Uganda Government stole Ebyaffe. Any delay in returning Ebyaffe adds to that misdeed. This is why it perplexes me that Mmengo helped craft the Agreement that requires additional compromises from Baganda. What is worse, Mmengo has surrendered important constitutional rights, an issue to which I shall return in a moment. The Agreement should have gone beyond Mr. Museveni and the Kabaka, to successors and assignees; in the event that either party cannot fulfil the terms of the Agreement. It would have been easy to achieve this, with language such as the following: “This Agreement is binding upon, and will inure to the benefit of, the parties to this agreement, and their respective successors and/or assignees.” The technical issues aside, the Agreement states that the Kabaka must “Respect the cultural norms of other related ethnic communities located in Buganda such as the Banyala and Baruli and leave to them land where the former administrative units were situated as was amicably agreed by both parties.” Is the Kabaka still Buganda’s sovereign if he has to bow to “ethnic communities” within his Kingdom? The Agreement has weakened him in this respect. It lists only two ethnic communities, the Banyala and Baruli. What is to stop other “ethnic communities” from deciding that they, too, are entitled to what Banyala and Baruli have through this Agreement? Now, for the constitutional rights Mmengo gave away: The rights have to do with free speech. The Agreement states, “Both parties undertake to totally refrain from engaging in hostile propaganda against each other which has tended to sour relations between the parties in recent years.” According to the internet dictionary at reference, propaganda means information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread to harm a person. The Kabaka has never spread information, ideas, or rumors deliberately to harm Mr. Museveni. Evidently the phrase “hostile propaganda” is intended to prevent the Kabaka from saying anything which could make Mr. Museveni bristle. The cost of democracy is that free speech will at times be considered by some to be offensive and by others to be hostile. This is why it is necessary to protect it under a constitution. Article 29(1)(a) of the 1995 Uganda Constitution states, “Every person shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression which shall include freedom of press and other media.” And Article 20(1) states, “Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual are inherent and not granted by the state.” This means that the state may not take away these fundamental rights and freedoms, because it does not give them. During the 2009 Kayunga Crisis, Mr. Museveni shut down CBS FM Radio. One suspects that his motive was to quell “hostile propaganda.” CBS had aired speech that stridently dissented from his views. He probably assumed that the Kabaka shared the dissenters’ views. But does the Kabaka have free speech rights? The Kabaka is a person with a vote. Under the 1995 Uganda Constitution, his “one vote” comes with political opinions. Those political opinions are “protected speech” under the constitution. The state does not give him this right to protected speech and, therefore, cannot take it away. As Article 20(1) of the Constitution states, this and other rights are inherent in being human. As long as the Kabaka remains human, he retains these rights. And he cannot sign them away as his signature on the Agreement purports. The 2016 campaign season will soon be upon us. Predictably, some Baganda will oppose Mr. Museveni and, sometimes, their speech will be strident. Will he go to Mmengo and demand that it enforce the “hostile propaganda” clause? This portends dispute. The Agreement provides that “Any disputes arising from this Agreement shall be resolved mutually.” I must say that this is as vague a statement as I have ever heard. It has no efficacy in setting out how the parties will resolve disputes. Usually, a contract or an agreement names an arbitration or litigation process for dispute resolution. It names a forum whose laws shall apply to dispute resolution—the “Choice of Law” clause. Ironically, although the parties to the August 1st Agreement claim that they will resolve disputes by themselves, they also seem to be saying they will litigate disputes; they say, “This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of Uganda.” At any rate, two things seem clear for the moment. First, that the Agreement has weakened the Kabaka’s hand with respect to groups that will claim status as so-called “ethnic communities.” Second, the Kabaka’s ability to speak will be left to the vagaries of guessing what Mr. Museveni defines as “hostile propaganda.” All this because Mmengo believed that it was time for an agreement with President Museveni. Spanish philosopher George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Is Buganda condemned to repeat the past?
Posted on: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 13:31:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015