Is federo non-developmental, really?

Kibirige blasts Baganda over federo debates
Tuesday, 18th September, 2007
By Ronald Kalyango and Chris Ahimbisibwe

Kibirige Ssebunya
THE Agriculture state minister has blasted Baganda who spend most of their time discussing federo, leaving little time for agricultural production.
Speaking during field trips in Bushenyi and Masaka districts last week, Kibirige Ssebunya commended the youth who participated in the cultivation of bananas and the rearing of pigs and poultry.
“I have little time to listen to FM radio stations because they are basically engaged in non-developmental issues,” noted Ssebunya.
Beatrice Wabudeya, the Minister for the Presidency, while addressing residents of Ruharo parish in Bumbeire sub-county, asked the Government and non-governmental charities to help homesteads identify farming projects that generate daily income.
She also asked agricultural workers to teach farmers improved farming methods that will lead to poverty alleviation.
Ruharo parish is a model area that is implementing the Poverty Alleviation Project launched by President Yoweri Museveni in 2004.
She added that Museveni would be happy if everybody in the country was in good health and free from poverty. Wabudeya said that was the reason why the President was introducing poverty alleviation and the universal secondary and primary education programmes.
She appealed to farmers to leave subsistence farming by looking beyond their consumption needs.
“The President wanted every homestead to have an activity that generates income daily. That is why he asked me to oversee the implementation of the programme in this parish,” noted Joan Kakwenzire, the senior presidential adviser on poverty alleviation.
Kakwenzire said 950 households had been given 77 heifers, 452 piglets, and 3,000 chickens.

Peter Mulira lied about federo

Mulira article was confusing

In his convoluted article: Ugandans Must Be Told The Plain Truth About Federo (Sunday Monitor September 16), Peter Mulira did not tell the truth. He made federo sound like rocket science. You cannot have a federal system inside a unitary state.

A situation where power is shared and retained at the same time by the central government cannot exist. Federalism is sharing power between the central government and the regions. The power the central government keeps and the power it devolves to regions must be spelt out in the constitution.

F.N. Lugemwa,

Republicanism vs. Federo

Opinion GOVERNANCE September 19, 2007
Put federo in the Constitution
Benjamin Wacha

Buganda secession debate preceded our independence. Buganda was hastily granted independence, a day before Uganda’s national independence. The colonial government did not resolve the issue. Five years later, Uganda became a republic, setting the post colonial landscape of Uganda. With a republic, therefore, 'we' invariably gave birth to instrument of governance that again Ugandans now take so dearly with great pride in protecting and defending.

The instrument is envisaged to provide us not only with a legal and constructive remedy, but also a constitutional power to operate in an orderly manner to ensure the fulfilment of our national duty with aptitude and respect for one another for the benefit of Uganda. This is a constitutionally enshrined contract with the clear mission to preserve Uganda for future generations if the constitution is not tampered with.

Suffice, therefore, to quickly add that the last time I checked, the 1995 constitution it had not annulled the republican revolution that we all strive to defend to death today. Although many citizens have had disputes over the conducts of the governments since independence, the republic has largely remained unscathed. Thanks to nationalism.

Our constitutional requirement, therefore, would call upon us all to rededication to do all that is within our powers to ensure that 'we', including Baganda, do not only get the full benefits of our God-given rights and inalienable citizenship, but also that our democratic governance dispensation is realised and bestowed upon all citizens without any undue regards.

There is, thus, need for a political structure which would provide us all with a remedy to resolve such a debate. In Buganda as it currently stands, and notwithstanding the controversy over the political credibility of our democracy, 'we' have a constitutional political environment which allows our participation to determine the fate of Uganda.

I would urge Buganda to use their strength to democratically vindicate the spirit of Ugandan Republic and use the ballot to constitutionally accede to governance, and defend their rights. If indeed their cause is legitimate which, like many other Ugandans, I strongly believe it is, their active involvement in this process is what Buganda needs to champion their cause to Ugandans.
Buganda must strive to attain the ultimate national political power and prowess needed to constitutionalise the Ebyaffe thing and terminally resolve it without spilling blood. Buganda should waste no time to nationalise the essence of their ideology. In short, Buganda doesn't want any undesirable phenomenon in the national order of things.

Everybody becomes a winner here, and we will all match along to the sounds of drums and horns at the Constitution Square to then formally and truly d├ębut a permanent dedication to the people and Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and all that it should stand for.

Benjamin M. Wacha

Scottish Federo Model for Uganda?!

Ugandans must be told the plain truth about federo
Peter Mulira
As one of the staunch supporters of the federo idea in the sense of regional self-government I am becoming rather distressed by the way most people are going about the issue. Politics has replaced constitutionalism in the way most people address the issue and no attempt is made to articulate or explain what is involved in the term “federo.”
Constitutional issues should always be considered in a bipartisan atmosphere with a view to reaching consensual agreement and in this case efforts should be made to bring arguments within the constitutional framework.
FOCUS: Buganda’s Kabaka Mutebi
CENTRAL: President Museveni
Federo is not a scientific term but is a generic word which was coined in the early nineties by a newspaper columnist, Mr Patrick Kiggundu, to describe Buganda’s demands for the return of her assets and other things (“ebyaffe”) which were abolished or expropriated under the Obote 1 government in the wake of the 1967 constitution. These things included the monarchy itself and the assets of the former Buganda government as well as its constitutional status.
The present public outcry concerns mostly the return of the system of self-government which Buganda enjoyed before and the restoration of the former crown or public land to the trusteeship of Mengo. Although a lot of confusion shrouds the demand for the reintroduction of self-government, the issue was clarified in Buganda’s submissions to the Constitutional Review Commission at page 72, which makes it clear that Buganda does not want to return to the 1962 federal status.
The federal debate should therefore be about self-government and not independence.This new position means that the bogey of Buganda’s separatism is now a thing of the past and the issue should be how to introduce regional autonomy or self-governance for those areas which want it. In this regard there are only two models in the world which can be followed namely; that of the United States or Scottish one.
The 1962 constitution followed the United States model which presupposes prior independence and which Buganda has now rejected and leaves us to concentrate on the Scottish model in which power is devolved from the centre to the periphery thus preserving the unitary nature of the country.
It is interesting to note that our Constitution under the chapter on ‘National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy’ directs that: “The state shall be guided by the principle of decentralisation and devolution of governmental functions and powers to the people at appropriate levels where they can best manage and direct their own affairs.” This means that the country can save itself a lot of distress if the “federo” issue was argued by our leaders within the spirit and confines of this provision, which in effect sanctions the creation of self-governing units on the Scottish model.
The essence of internal autonomy or self-government is captured first and foremost in three things namely; a recognised region, a regional government which can variously be called a “state” as in the United States or “ provincial” as in Canada and thirdly, the region, state or province normally has its own constitution to govern its internal affairs subject to the national constitution.
Where autonomy precedes union as in the United States of America, the relationship with the centre is federal or a state within a state which does not exist in a unitary state.Apart from providing for decentralisation and devolution of governmental functions and powers our Constitution contains all the ingredients normally found in constitutions of a federal nature namely “entrenchment” (Article 261) which means that devolved powers cannot easily be withdrawn, reservation in the periphery powers and functions which are not given to the centre (Articles 178 and 189(3)), and providing for a three-layered system of government (Article 189).
In fact, the only thing the Constitution does not allow from this perspective is a horizontal relationship between the centre and the periphery as was the case in 1962. Our leaders; both national and local, have a heavy responsibility to tell the public the truth. It is untruthful, for example, to promise Buganda “full federo” because this would mean first giving her independence as was the case on October 8, 1962, before she entered into a full federal relationship with Uganda the following day. The only federo which is possible is the one which has so far been offered which is an impossibility — through decentralisation and devolution. It is important to note that the Constitution has recognised the principle of regions, regional governments and division of functions. What is lacking is the freedom of the regions to have their own constitutions and sharing of finances and resources.
It is unfortunate that the constitutional amendments which introduced the regional tier did not provide for regional constitutions. Most of the objections which were expressed against the tier system in Buganda, for example,, are matters which should have been contained in a regional constitution.
Mr Mulira is an advocate and social commentator

New definition of secession

EAR TO THE GROUND Charles Onyango-Obbo


There are two Ugandas; the 1st and 2nd republics
September 12, 2007
Recently MP Hussein Kyanjo got very many people, from the fattest political cats at the top, to small time village NRM officials, very agitated when he suggested that it might be better for Uganda to secede, because it has got a very raw deal under the government of President Yoweri Museveni.
Funny thing is, Kyanjo is right. The surprise is his failure to note that various selected parts and groups of people have been seceding from the main Uganda for years. The secession that has been happening in Uganda, is not the type that was attempted between 1967 and 1970 when mainly the Igbo southeastern provinces of Nigeria tried to break away from the rest of the country as the self-proclaimed Republic of Biafra.In Uganda, it is the various governments and leaders who have been leading “their people” in secession movements against the rest of the country.
Consider this. Many, many years ago, our father used to work in Fort Portal. Naturally, we travelled a lot between Fort Portal and Tororo.As soon as we left Kampala to head westward, things changed. We encountered roadblocks manned by heavily armed Special Force police and soldiers. We only used to see machine guns in movies, so the sight of the real thing really fascinated us.
Nearly every time we would ask our parents why there were guns only in Buganda. And they would reply that it was because there was a “state of emergency” there. I didn’t understand what “state of emergency” meant until several years later when I went to secondary school. Anyhow, because of the “troubles” in Buganda, which led to the storming of Kabaka Mutesa’s palace and his exile, and eventually, the abolition of the 1962 constitution, the government suspended a wide range of civil liberties in the region.
Some republicans argue that when Mengo passed a resolution ordering the “government of Uganda” to “leave Buganda’s soil”, it declared secession, and sought to return to the “special status” the region enjoyed before independence.
If that were the case, then the ultimate irony is that Buganda got a “special status” in Uganda, though not the type it was looking for. Rather it was the government of Uganda that sealed off Buganda, and ruled it as a mini police state, denying citizens there rights other Ugandans enjoyed.
Things have remained the same since then. Governments don’t want to hear talk of secession, while on the other hand it is seceding.There was the Field Marshall Idi Amin era. Amin and his circle created a small country and seceded from Uganda. In that that “state within Uganda”, call it “First Republic”, they would fly in planeloads of the finest whisky, wine, designer clothes and condiments to bake up a cake worthy of an emperor, for their weddings.
Meanwhile in the “Second Republic” shops were empty. No salt, no soap, no milk, no toothpaste, no cooking fat. Nothing. In the Second Republic most families went without sugar, and couldn’t find soda or beer for their weddings.
Every Ugandan regime has maintained this separate First Republic. When their wives and daughters are ready to deliver their babies, they are flown to Europe at taxpayers’ expense. Meanwhile, there is no medicine to treat malaria in the “Second Republic” hospitals. A captain with First Republic connections will be flown to Germany for treatment if he is wounded in battle, while another captain from the “Second Republic” struggles for his life in some rundown military hospital.
Then the groups and families in the First Republic get most of the top public jobs and lucrative state tenders, while those from the Second Republic grass. In other words, there are groups that are ‘eating’, that have seceded from the “non-eating” ones.In politics too there was secession. The government created a separated world of the Movement. This was the First Republic. Here you could campaign for office without harassment, and get money from state coffers to buy votes.
The Second Republic that had been left behind, was occupied by multipartyists and other “misguided” elements. Police broke up their seminars, and helicopter gunships were deployed to scatter their rallies. And they couldn’t even use their own money to buy votes.
Then we had the infamous “Karuma Line”, the secession line that carved northern Uganda from the rest of the country. The rest of us lived in the First Republic, where life was normal. In the northern Second Republic, the “other Uganda” lived in terror, abject poverty. In short, in the Stone Age.
In fact, for quite a while, government (and some international finance organisations’) economic statistics excluded the Second Republic, because things were so bad that if you added the poverty levels there to the national count, the standard of living of Uganda dropped sharply.
In Uganda, a ruling class and government can secede. But Kyanjo cannot do so from the Opposition benches. He must wait until he is in power.

Secessionitsts are ice cold strategic federalists!

ON THE MARK Alan Tacca


Secession, East African unity and treason
September 9 - 15, 2007

I think it is no longer disputed that the supposed champions of Buganda’s secession are not really bidding for secession, but for federalism under a central Ugandan government. Sometimes, a negotiator demands the total surrender of an old foe, when his aim is only the establishment of peace and cooperation between the warring parties.
However, in these tropical latitudes, the Makindye West legislator, Hussein Kyanjo, who initially disturbed the beehive and was interrogated by the Criminal Investigations Directorate, cannot be sure what more agitated political times would throw at him. But what is all the fuss about? After all, if unity is strength, then a province that opts out of the present country would eventually pay the price for its folly.
The seceding quarter of the country would in the long term be economically battered more harshly than the remaining three-quarters. Well, even if we took Kyanjo’s remarks literally, it is obvious that the pursuit of a secessionist idea would be nigh impossible under a militarised regime whose power is as centralised as with the NRM.
Gulu District chairman, Nobert Mao, who had earlier toyed with a similar idea for the north was a joker. MP Kyanjo, who referred to the (central) Buganda region, was a five-star joker. The UPDF, under Gen. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, would never permit the sin, because the sovereign oneness of the Republic of Uganda is sacrosanct. We shall return to this point later.
Under the NRM government, two contradictory processes have been going on simultaneously. The NRM is pushing for economic integration and political federation in the direction of East Africa, and the same NRM is working for the fragmentation of Uganda. If the official “gang up” theory of development is to be taken seriously, then we may conclude that the NRM aims at impoverishing and politically weakening the people (as Ugandans), and at the same time is desirous of enriching and empowering them (as East Africans).
Indeed, among all the districts recently created to “bring services nearer to the people”, there are a number whose story of the year will be the haggle over buying a secondhand four-wheel-drive vehicle for the district chairman. Too small and too resource-starved to venture into meaningful health, education, agrarian or infrastructure initiatives.
They are simply conduits for petty partisan parasitic consumption, with the cardinal mission of the NRM being how to keep out those who do not subscribe to their party.It seems then that the party leadership fears a prosperous and relatively free population within the limited Ugandan polity more than a similar population in the larger East African context.
That is why the agitators for internal federalism (federo) in Uganda are treated with contempt, and “good” reasons are invented to justify the creation of more districts. It is also why the government tends to “negotiate” with Buganda’s Mengo establishment over federo as if it were dealing with an enemy, producing no tangible results, and by contrast discusses political integration with Uganda’s neighbours in a friendly respectful tone.
But now we return to the country’s sovereignty. Let us suppose that Uganda’s changing circumstances made the call for secession something for real. We assume that the State (Uganda) is sacrosanct.
Its territory within a fixed boundary, its people and its defining institutions are inviolable; so the purists say. Those who demand federo are perceived as threatening its oneness; those who warn of secessionist waves have one leg in treason.Why? What about the call for merging Uganda with other countries? When we split a plank once, we get two planks.
On the other hand, if we bind the plank to several others, we get a raft. The raft no doubt has its virtues; but so also is the split plank. However, in both cases the original plank has lost its holy oneness. From this angle, it would be intriguing to hear an argument that the calls for East African Federation are as treasonable as those for Buganda or northern secession.

Has federo lost the battle or the war?

Inside Politics September 5, 2007

“Buganda’s quest for secession is inevitable”


WANTS INDEPENDENCE: Former Katikkiro, Muliika

Kabaka Ronald Mutebi is the king of Buganda

MP Hussein Kyanjo resurrected the secession debate

Talk of Buganda, which occupies the central region of present day Uganda breaking away from the rest of the country, has re-surfaced over the last weeks, dividing the country over the matter.

What started like the wild ranting of a media seeking politician might yet turn out to be a well orchestrated plan of a section of Baganda seeking to recreate the old dreams of an independent state.

MP Hussein Kyanjo of Makindye West re-awakened the debate, which last seriously came up in the early years of Uganda's independence at the height of tensions between the monarchy and the central government.

Former Buganda Katikiro (Prime Minister) Daniel Muliika has in an exclusive interview with Inside Politics revealed that the calls for Buganda to break away from the rest of Uganda by MP Kyanjo represent a key section of the baganda. Mr Muliika served a dramatic one year at Mengo.
He warns of bloodshed if Buganda's demands and needs are not paid heed to, the same message carried by Kyanjo. If the central government does not change its attitude towards Buganda's demands and interests, the kingdom's plan to secede must be realised no matter how long it takes, the two men stated in separate interviews.

Muliika says Buganda does not need the central government's goodwill to carry through her plans.

But the titular head of the estimated six million Baganda, the Kabaka warned a congregation of Baganda in the Diaspora at the weekend that calls for cessation coming at this time only helps to weaken the kingdoms bid for meaningful federo.

Mr Kyanjo, who unveiled Buganda's alleged intentions to break away from Uganda, insists that the plan must mature and no authority has the powers to block it.Why break away? Kyanjo says that as an MP, the proposal to see Buganda breaking away from Uganda is his constituents' demand and places his arguments against the fact that the central government has continually failed to honour the kingdom's demands.

According to Kyanjo, these include federalism, the demand for the kingdom's property or, that government will stop the illegal and provocative giveaway of Buganda land, and an end to tribalism among others. He says all these are a well calculated plan to impoverish Baganda as a way of weakening the kingdom.

Kyanjo says he was working out a plan to extend his campaign country wide with the aim of convincing other regions to support a break away from Uganda except western Uganda.

"It cannot be a coincidence that the army chief, prisons chief, minister of defence, police head, security and internal affairs minister are all from one region (West)," Kyanjo said.

Citing examples to bring out the 'greed' inside government, Kyanjo said the current establishment has ensured that all juicy Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (Chogm) contracts have been offered to people from western Uganda.

"A lot of injustice has been exhibited to the extent that even the small Chogm contracts have been offered to people from the western region. From car importation to those who will wash them during the summit," Kyanjo wondered adding that, "some thing must be done. It's unjust and must be addressed quickly."

He said government has further exhibited a lot of segregation through the education and employment sectors. Kyanjo says government has launched an economic war against baganda and other regions saying concerned authorities have not given equal opportunities to local investors basing on their regions of origin.

He said while government has exhibited a lot of tolerance and support to some companies like Apparels Tri-star (Tri-star is owned by an Asian businessman) and individuals like Hassan Basajjabalaba to the extent that state funds were diverted to rescue their private business, the same method has not applied to Baganda owned investments.

Basajjabalaba is a local investor who owns a number of shopping malls in the city center, Kampala International University (KIU), and firms that manage major city markets among other properties. He is also the chairman for NRM (the ruling party) entrepreneurship committee.

Kyanjo wonders why Greenland Bank, Zigotti Coffee Ltd, Kyagalanyi Coffee, H.M Nsamba Coffee Ltd, Ssembule Bank and group of industries, were all left to collapse and be taken over by foreigners.

"It's a good business principal for the government to support local enterprises but why does it work only for selected ones? How do you convince me that other ventures never deserved to be supported?" he queried.

"There's nothing that is as painful as being discriminated against. These are just greedy people from the top down through the markets."

Expressing a lot of dissatisfaction with the current establishment, Kyanjo warns that a revolution to redress the deserted sections must take place. "All Ugandans can't be oppressed forever. The current establishment was supported by the people of Buganda to power and a lot of promises were made, this was an agreement between the two parties," Kyanjo said, "government should remember that the Buganda institution was much involved to the extent that even the Kabaka had to join his subjects and practically participated in the war."

A map of Buganda Kingdom’s boundaries. Below is a map showing Buganda’s position in Uganda.

On accusations of inciting the public, Kyanjo said the institution has been insulted repetitively through a number of government officials.

"You can imagine a full cabinet minister telling people to get pangs and chase Baganda from a certain region and because he is a minister then he is not inciting the public," he said.

Does Kyanjo have a real strategy? Kyanjo claims that his plans detail a "very simple way" to achieve an independent state of Buganda. He claims this is so because the public is increasingly realising selfish interests as exhibited by the government. He says his campaign has been much supported by members of Buganda Region parliamentary caucus and a special committee has been set up to follow-up the matter.

"Buganda's secession is a fact which can be realised to ensure a bright future for our grand children. It does not matter how long it may take but it must happen," he said. The MP says he is aware that his intentions may mean a number of consequences including death but he is ready for everything.

"I'm ready to pay the price for what am fighting for but they (government officials) will pay much than me," Kyanjo said.

"Not mere dream" - Muliika
Mr Muliika supports Kyanjo's idea and to him Buganda does not even need the central government's goodwill to secede. Muliika lasted only 13 and a half months (Dec.28 2005 - Feb 13, 2007) as Katikkiro, an incredibly short time.

In that period, Mengo the seat of Buganda witnessed the highest level of tensions with central government unseen since the restoration of monarchies in 1993. Mr Muliika had replaced Joseph Ssemwogerere who held the reigns of power at Mengo for 11 years.

Now retired to his farm in Masaka, Muliika said the move was long over due since central government has failed to realise Buganda's position and interests in Uganda. "I support Kyanjo's stand since his demands are clear that Buganda should be left to control itself in all aspects.

Buganda is a nation which existed before Uganda and its independence was attained on October 8 1962," he said. He urged Baganda not to yield to intimidation by central government saying, "this we must achieve. We are not dreaming.

"Only that Baganda have not made-up their mind to pick guns and fight the enemy (central government). An enemy will remain an enemy and you can never solve problems through stealing," Muliika said.

He said whoever attempts to fight Buganda fights his regime, "Obote made the same mistake (fighting Buganda) and where did his regime end? The same applies to this regime, the moment it attempts the same mistake it will take the same direction."

He said Baganda and the Mengo establishment should rally behind the Kabaka to fight for the kingdom's interests, strongly back Kyanjo's concerns and draw clear avenues to realise the dream.

Muliika cautioned Baganda politicians not to be diverted over their political inclinations since Buganda's quest does not affect their political parties and system of governance."

If we have a clear system of governance through which each political party operates things would be simple. It would clearly stipulate the status of kingdoms and their stake in Uganda," he said. "Central government exists on the kingdom's expense; we can achieve it with or without government's backup. Any other objective kingdom can join us."

Debate on secession:
Rubaga North MP, Beti Olive Kamya, a member of the opposition front bench has also joined in the fray.

Kamya's views on the cessation have kicked up a storm on an internet chat of mainly Ugandans in the Diaspora. In her posting Kamya wrote; "fact is, Baganda have all sorts of grievances which have led them to wish to call it quits. Does anybody have a problem with that? If it is about property in Kampala, no one is under any threat as they will be welcome to live in Buganda, as they do in the UK, USA etc and property can be shared out as we did when the EAC collapsed. Those are details. the principal is that Buganda wants to go it alone - and there 6 M + Baganda according to the latest census and I know many very able countries, with GDP and GDP per capita many times that of Uganda, whose population is much less than 6 M.

Ms Kamya's proposals have attracted several angry responses especially from none Baganda.

Ms Pam Ankunda notes that there is no special reason that Buganda is advancing in seeking cessation, "My humble opinion though is that Buganda has no cause to secede because our interests are one. No tribe deserves privileges over the other."Officially government has remained silent about the demands but sources tell Inside Politics that a sense of discomfort over the bubbling demands is steadily growing.

Support Acholi in the Quest for Federo

Kabaka opposes buganda secession

Sunday, 2nd September, 2007

Kabaka Ronald Mutebi

By Ahmed Kateregga in New Jersey State, USA

KABAKA Ronald Mutebi has opposed the proposal for Buganda to secede from Uganda. He said it would undermine Buganda’s quest for the establishment of a federal system of government for the whole of Uganda.

Mutebi was on Saturday opening the annual Baganda Convention, called “Tabamiruka”, held at Hyatt Hotel in New Bruinswick, New Jersey State, USA. The Kabaka warned that Buganda would be alienated from the rest of Uganda if it attempted to secede. He, instead, argued that they should work with other regions, such as Acholi, to bring about a federal system for the country.

The Kabaka said Buganda would not resort to violence in order to get federo. “Buganda is engaged in a war of ideas,” he noted. “All the Baganda in central and local governments should work together to achieve federo.”

During the convention, Makindye-West MP Hussein Kyanjo reiterated his call for Buganda to secede if it was not granted a federal status. He argued that almost all top government positions were held by people from one region.

But Buganda’s Attorney General Apollo Makubuya did not toe Kyanjo’s line. He explained the circumstances under which Buganda’s delegation to talks with the central government had accepted a regional government, called a Regional Tier. The Buganda Kingdom later rejected the regional tier, arguing that it wanted a federal status.

Many of the speakers from the Diaspora advised Mengo to stop holding political talks and instead opt for legal action. In the wings of the convention, Kabaka Mutebi held talks with senior presidential adviser Kintu Musoke. A source said Musoke delivered a message from President Yoweri Museveni, informing the Kabaka that the President was willing to hold talks with Buganda after the Commonwealth summit in November.

The Kabaka also met the Buganda Parliamentary caucus delegation, led by Rose Namayanja.
The convention, organised by the Baganda community in the United States, was attended by Mengo officials, led by Katikkiro (Buganda prime minister) Emmanuel Sendawula. Others who attended were MPs James Kakooza, Latif Ssebaggala and the Wakiso district chairperson Ian Kyeyune.