Federalism for All Now

Quest for federalism must be principled

2008-02-26T15:47:00.002+03:00

Opinions February 23, 2008
Politics: Morris Komakech

Buganda is usually very presumptive when it comes to advancing its interests. Take for instance, the agitation for federo. A feature article by J. K. Kavuma Kagwa entitled Create four federal states (Daily Monitor, February 13) is one such passionate appeal for what the Baganda have conceptualised as a utopian state of their existence.

Mr Kavuma in his article, made some interesting proposals such as creating four federal states namely; Buganda, Rwenzori, Masaba and Nile respectively. In the same article, he marvelled at the upfront approach undertaken by Acholi leaders towards embracing a federal system of governance as a viable alternative to the current unitary system that has fermented military dictatorship and tribal conflicts.

There are several discrepancies with Mr Kavuma’s attitude which subsequently presents underlying contradictions within the Buganda mainstream ideology. Mr Kavuma, for instance, assumes that the Acholi people are newcomers in this matter of federalism. From a historical perspective, the Acholi have always supported a federal system and that position was eloquently presented to the Odoki Commission in 1993. However, what has left Ugandans of same mindset unsure about Buganda’s own position, is the uncompromising preference for “federo” instead of federalism.

Most Ugandans perceive Buganda’s fervent agitation for federo as the step toward cessation. During the Baganda Annual Convention dubbed “Tabamiruka” at New Brunswick in New Jersey last September, the issue of federo and Buganda secession came up for debate.

It was Kabaka Ronald Mutebi who clearly scorned the latter idea. The Kabaka argued that such a move would alienate Buganda from the rest of Uganda and generate contempt for its other interests. Mutebi argued intelligently that Buganda should engage in the war of ideas and strive relentlessly to work with other regions like Acholi to achieve “federo.”

Kabaka Mutebi’s position is a comfortable position indeed. Buganda must endeavour to address, urgently, this misunderstanding of their “federo” which sounds loaded with sinister intentions. Ugandans must know whether federo is synonymous with general principles of federalism that their potential allies- the Acholi - and others may agree with.

Other striking contradictions preside within the very nature of Buganda and its intrinsic objectives. It is reasonable to argue that while northerners may wish to strike an alliance with Buganda in the struggle for federalism, Buganda itself, is not precisely organised enough to front its own case, consistently.

Besides, there is no guarantee that Buganda can stand the heat of controversy without flip flopping and reneging on its alliances in the face of state resistance or corruption. The recent attempt to reach an agreement for regional tier presents an interesting read to reaffirm my case here.

Another contradiction is the unexploited might of Buganda both in terms of having access to power and a potentially huge voter population. Majority of power brokers in Uganda in the last half century have been largely a composite of Baganda elites in cahoots with those in power.
If “federo” is at the heart of some of the wishes of Buganda, how come it is the Baganda who are constantly sabotaging it? For instance, in the current NRM government, half of the cabinet ministers are from Buganda and are NRM.

Buganda also enjoys a big number in parliament where federalism could be debated and passed since it is a national issue. How come the electorates who are mainstream Baganda are not pressing their MPs and ministers to prioritise the advancement of Buganda’s interest?
Another glaring contradiction is the excessive political loyalty Buganda has committed to the ruling NRM. The Baganda voters have persistently supported the NRM government while crying foul about the same government that it has marginalised Mengo and deprived it of its properties. Buganda must consider divorcing the NRM if it wants to reclaim its glory.

And at the most dire need for empathy during times when people were dying in the northern and eastern parts of Uganda, the Baganda rallied behind President Museveni’s regime and never spoke out for the innocent villagers who were being killed. Twenty years of bloodbath in Acholi went unnoticed. Buganda needs to cultivate a culture of internal consistency and develop internal mechanism to understand that in the game of politics, one cannot hold grudges forever, to that blinding point.

The search for identity by northerners within Uganda stems from being utterly rejected and subsequently alienated by the rest of the country for two full decades. The conceptualisation of semi-independent Nile Republic in the North is borne out of discontent in line with facts that northerners have been and continue to be treated like second hand citizens nationally. Their quest for federalism is a genuine cause that must be pursued swiftly with principled alliances.

The author is the founding member of Federal Review Commission Uganda. He is resident in Canada. May be contacted on mordust_26@yahoo.ca

Federalism does not mean tribalism

2007-11-07T00:13:00.000+03:00

Opinion GOVERNANCE November 7, 2007
Tajudeen Abdul Raheem

Kenya is gripped by election fever. In the frenzied atmosphere everything has become extremely partisan operating essentially as ‘if you are not for me’ then you are against me!

Last Saturday, November 3 at the famous Ufungamano Hall in Nairobi, I walked straight into the brawling ring of Kenya’s ongoing ‘do or die’ political campaigns. I was a keynote speaker at a public lecture on ‘the Great Majimbo debate’ organised by the Young Professionals for Raila. It was obviously a partisan platform but the matter being discussed was of a very public nature.

We may not yet have votes in other African states but we should not collaborate in our silencing by also refusing to contribute to public spaces. What gives foreign diplomats, NGOs and so called ‘experts’ the right to lecture our leaders on all things under the sun and beyond the skies but require other Africans ‘to stay quiet’? I had made it clear to my hosts that I was not coming to speak as a UN staff but rather as a concerned Pan Africanist and a political scientist with some insight into the subjecxt matter.

That entire caveat was of no use in the ensuing reports of the meeting in the Kenyan papers. I do not usually blame the media for ‘misrepresentation’ or ‘misquoting’ but on this occasion my colleagues in the fourth estate of the realm really undersold themselves. Sample these headlines: ‘UN envoy defends Majimbo system’ (Sunday Nation, November 4); ‘ UN official backs controversial Majimbo system’ (Sunday Standard November 4); or ‘Majimbo system : ODM now brings in an expert’ (The People on Sunday, November 4 ) including claims that I was specifically flown in by ODM for the event!

Even in their preoccupation with my UN status they did not even bother to be accurate. All the reports got my position and particular UN affiliation wrong. But this should not deflect us from the political significance of the debate that is wrongly termed Majimbo by Kenyans and Ugandans will know as Federo.

For me it is about wider issues of political and economic governance, devolution of power and the degree to which people of Kenya should have control over their destiny and the accountability of their leaders to them at various levels. It is about how to stop our presidents from monopolising power at the centre and reducing representative institutions like parliaments to personal choir groups.

In the current charged competition for votes the Kenya debate is couched in exclusive terms. President Kibaki’s side have succeeded in wrong footing the pro-devolution group as Majimboists (code word for tribalists just as Federo is seen as another word for Buganda hegemony in Uganda) and their supporters as enemies of national unity. Whereas in Uganda it is the majority nationality that has historically championed Federo, in Kenya it is minority groups with majority Kikuyu elite being opposed to.

The opposition has reacted defensively to say that it is not the old divisive Majimbo of the 1960s that they are clamouring for rather it is a limited political devolution that will give Kenya back to every Kenyan. What is clear is that both sides agree on devolution but cannot agree on by how much.

The government thinks the Constituency Development Fund which came under this regime (even though it was from a Private Members Bill instead of government or opposition legislative agenda) is enough. The opposition thinks it should be extended to regional levels. I think if devolution is so good why is it being limited to 2. 5 %? Who controls the rest? Both government and opposition have to give clear answers to the voters.

Whether you call it Majimbo or devolution the consensus means that everyone is not happy with the status quo. This is where my defence of Federalism begins and the substance of my contribution to the debate last Saturday. One, the response to an overbearing centralised state is devolution of power and clamouring for same by the constituent units in that system. They could be districts, provinces, regions or other administrative areas. Two, in the specific case of Kenya it is clear the Bomas consensus was to have a very weak federalism which shares powers and resources between the constituent units on a more equitable way but retaining substantial and especially the power to levy taxes at the centre.

While there may be many challenges with establishing a federal system including threats of narrow nationalism, regionalism or statism, the solution is not to continue to defend the unsatisfactory status quo but to agree on rights of all Kenyans wherever they may be and the commitment to the rule of law to defend them.

The opportunities of a federal system are just too many for fear to intimidate supporters from articulating it. It offers greater opportunities for wider political recruitment of leadership instead of the current situation of being limited to national cabinet level.

The author works with the UN
tajudeen.abdulraheem@gmail.com

Is federo non-developmental, really?

2007-09-19T00:53:00.000+03:00

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

2007-09-18T23:40:00.000+03:00

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,
Kampala

Republicanism vs. Federo

2007-09-18T23:22:00.000+03:00

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 début a permanent dedication to the people and Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and all that it should stand for.

Benjamin M. Wacha bmwacha@yahoo.com

Scottish Federo Model for Uganda?!

2007-09-15T22:07:00.000+03:00

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

2007-09-12T01:17:00.000+03:00

OPINIONS & COMMENTARIES
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.
cobbo@nation.co.ke

Secessionitsts are ice cold strategic federalists!

2007-09-09T00:31:00.000+03:00

OPINIONS & COMMENTARIES
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.

altacca@yahoo.com

Has federo lost the battle or the war?

2007-09-07T00:27:00.001+03:00

Inside Politics September 5, 2007

“Buganda’s quest for secession is inevitable”

ROBERT MWANJE KAMPALA

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

2007-09-03T00:36:00.001+03:00

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.

Federo addressing imbalances

2007-08-27T01:14:00.000+03:00

Opinion FEDERALISM August 27, 2007
Gen. Ali’s outbursts were unfortunate
S. Ssali Kiggundu

I would like to react to Lt. Gen. Moses Ali’s outbursts over Hon. Hussein Kyanjo’s statements calling upon Buganda to break away from the rest of Uganda and form an autonomous state like Eritrea did from Ethiopia, Southern Sudan, which is in the process of breaking away as an independent state etc.

Mr Ali’s outbursts were unfortunate and uncalled for because the same sentiments have previously been expressed by Gulu LC5 Chairman Norbert Mao and the late Teberio Oketch, former DP vice president.

Why didn’t he raise his concerns at that time if he is so patriotic as he is trying to portray in his attacks? Has he ever asked himself why the BAT factory was built in Kampala and not West Nile where most of the tobacco is grown or why there is no electricity in Koboko, Moyo, Yumbe and Adjuman since independence and yet he has been the 2nd Deputy Prime Minister for long?

Mr Ali should ask himself why he was promoted only upon retirement, and after being imprisoned in Luzira. Has he ever asked himself why there is a lot of development in southern Sudan after getting the semi-autonomous status from the Khartoum government?

These and many others are the imbalances, which force people to issue statements like those made by Mr Kyanjo, Mr Mao and many others. Buganda has been so much oppressed to the extent that people are not ashamed to say Kampala is not part of Buganda and yet the seat of Buganda is in Kampala.

Besides, people are taking our land uninterrupted. We have been called all sorts of names and when any one comes out to protest this mistreatment, people like Ali come up quickly to suppress the grievances.

To be sincere, Ali would have said the same words during the time the UPC government soldiers were persecuting people from West Nile region. The saying that “people don’t talk when they are eating” is so much relevant in Ali’s present thinking and those who associate with his school of thought.

Doesn’t he think if West Nile became a federal state, it could ably find solutions to all those problems listed above and foster meaningful development directly to the people of that region?
If Ali had ever thought about why regions like Busoga, Buganda, Bunyoro etc have put up their own universities when his West Nile has none, he would have been able to know why Buganda has a point in demanding a federal system of governance. Buganda will continue to suffer when we have in our midst the likes of Ali.

National Tax Payers and
Tax Protection Organisation
Tel: 0772-301277

Federo is to curb secessionist tendencies

2007-08-25T23:13:00.000+03:00

OPINIONS & COMMENTARIES
LOOSE TALK Fredrick Golooba-Mutebi
...

Misplaced conclusions on secession
August 26 - September 1, 2007

Recently, Makindye West Member of Parliament and Jeema bigwig, Hussein Kyanjo, went public with thoughts he had kept to himself for a long time. He declared that, in his opinion, the time had come for Buganda to detach itself from Uganda and become an independent country.

As would be expected in a context where Buganda remains the bogey it became in the years leading up to independence when political parties led by non-Baganda with no agenda to sell to the public used its "arrogance" to frighten people into supporting them, Kyanjo's pronouncements set off waves of alarm and indignation.

Most alarmed were those occupying important political positions, which is not at all surprising, and those who aspire to be seen as "progressive" (that much-abused word), which is interesting.
Some members of the public, mostly Baganda, if reactions on radio and in print media are anything to go by, though, were thoroughly gratified by Hajji Kyanjo's statement. He, some claimed, had spoken out on their behalf, expressing the same ideas they had long wanted to express but lacked either the courage of their convictions, or the forum, to do so.

Those among the alarmed who are quick to look for historical parallels with whatever they see as "a crisis" started conjuring up images of impending doom. To them, Kyanjo risked sparking another "1966 Crisis".

Kintu Nyago, a self-professed Pan-Africanist (that free-for-all label), East African federalist, and National Resistance Movement spin doctor at large, weighed in with legalistic arguments.
In a New Vision article, he claimed that there was no reason why anyone would seek to champion secession in Uganda, and threatened prosecution for those daring to do so, not least because it is a treasonable offence.

In a debate on one Internet discussion forum, Bukedde journalist, Ahmed Kateregga Musaazi, volunteered to join those who might seek to crush Buganda if it ever tried to secede.

The more sophisticated opponents of Kyanjo's views chose to go "technical". First, they claimed, Buganda is too small to survive as an independent country. Second, they argued, it was "strange" that Kyanjo would agitate for secession when "everywhere" people were creating large political units.

Underlying this particular argument is the view that large political entities are necessarily more stable and better to live in than small ones. What all these people need is a good dose of history. Those who brandish the 1966 Crisis as a scare tactic each time there is an argument between Buganda or what some refer to as "the Mengo establishment" and the central government, should study the events leading up to the storming of the Lubiri in 1966.

The story is much more complex than the one they peddle; of Buganda's attempt to secede being the cause of what happened. At the very least they should read lawyer Peter Mulira's well-informed newspaper columns.

Those who believe that prosecution is the proper antidote to secessionist sentiments ought to familiarise themselves with the conduct of secessionist movements. Secessionists usually cite cultural and other injustices to justify their calls for separation, as indeed Hajji Kyanjo has attempted to do (see, for example, "Buganda is being cheated", The Weekly Observer, July 16).
One may disagree with secessionism, but that in itself should not reduce the subject to the status of a taboo. Open and honest discussion is a far better option for two reasons. It could easily expose secessionists as a bunch of rebels without a cause and undermine their chances of securing support.

Alternatively, it would allow for their grievances, if valid, to be addressed. This is a more intelligent and politically astute way of dealing with secessionists than threatening them with violence and repression. The notion that bigger is better and more stable is questioned by the number of secessionist movements, past and current, in Africa.

The vast majority are traceable to the continent's large states: Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Senegal, Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Cameroon, and Morocco. Even Tanzania, one of Africa's historically most stable countries, must now contend with incipient secessionist sentiment arising from feelings of exclusion begot by Zanzibar's highly polarising politics.

Africa's small states have for the most part been more stable than their larger counterparts, and also largely free of secessionist movements. Well, it may just be that, with a few exceptions, when it comes to countries, smaller is safer.

fgmutebi@yahoo.com

The promise of a federal system

2007-08-19T09:38:00.000+03:00

Buganda should break away

ALLOW me to comment on the current debate about Makindye West MP Hussein Kyanjo’s call for Buganda to secede from Uganda.

I think Buganda has every right to break away from the rest of Uganda if the central Government continues to ignore our demands for the restoration of a full federal system.

It was on the promise of a federal system that Buganda agreed to go ahead and form a united Uganda with other regions. Now that it is becoming obvious that the Government is not willing to restore our federo, there is no use trying to maintain this failed marriage.

Buganda was a viable independent state before the colonialists came and surely we can do just fine now.

Edward Musisi
Brussels, Belgium

Published on: Saturday, 18th August, 2007

Editorial wrong on Prof. Ali Mazrui

2007-08-12T08:06:00.000+03:00

ACCORDING the editorial in last week’s Sunday Vision, Prof. Ali Mazrui’s remarks on Buganda’s federal for a federal status were miscalculated. In my view it is not Ali Mazrui who got it wrong, it is your editorial which got Mazrui wrong.

The province of Quebec which Mazrui mentioned as an asymmetrical example in federalism is not a new phenomenon. The asymmetrical status is commonplace in all federations worldwide.

Your editorial talked about the absence of an African example one can use to advance Buganda’s demands for a federal system of government. What about the case of Ethiopia and Eritrea? The region of Eritrea (as it was known then) started demanding for a federal asymmetrical connection with Ethiopia before Mengistu Haile Mariam came to power.

The central Government in Ethiopia was very reluctant to answer such a call. Eritrea pushed its self-determination demand through the United Nations which finally supported its independence declaration. By the time Ethiopia thought of going federal, it was too late.

The dialogue on federalism is now irrelevant. The people have talked about federalism in both the Odoki and Ssempebwa constitutional recommendations. We need a federal system to check the misuse of power at the centre. We also need power in the regions to check power at the centre and that shouldn’t be a monopoly of only Buganda. Karamoja too needs that power to protect its cattle and gold through a power base in Kotido.

John Ken Lukyamuzi
Kampala

Published on: Saturday, 11th August, 2007

Is government handling the Buganda Federo question well?

2007-08-06T00:52:00.000+03:00

CROSSFIRE: What are the views of the Government and the opposition about the topic of the week? Sunday Vision pits opposition columnist Wafula Oguttu against the Government representative, Ofwono Opondo.

Ofwono-Opondo

KABAKA Ronald Muwenda Mutebi, while celebrating his 14th coronation anniversary on Tuesday, urged “my people,” — the Baganda — to discard old primitive relics and embrace science and modernity. Interestingly, his call came on the heels of MP Hussein Kyanjo’s (Makindye East) earlier misplaced, diversionary and escapist view that Buganda should secede from Uganda, and Prof. Ali Mazrui’s talk that Buganda be granted political federalism as a special status.

Then the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) boss Col. (rtd.) Dr. Kizza Besigye, not to be outdone, claimed that Buganda can never attain a federal status as long as the National Resistance Movement (NRM) is leading Uganda. These views are not new, except, perhaps, for the players who keep changing with time. This begs the first question whether there is such a thing as the Buganda question or is it the ever receding Mengo clique whipping up raw ethnic emotions for selfish gains? It should be pointed out that it was the so-called custodians of Buganda interests, from Ssekabaka Mutesa I, through the palace coups of Kiwewa and Kalema, who signed Buganda off to imperialism and colonialism, and therefore their descendants should not heap blame on the NRM. The Buganda kings and regents: Sir Apollo Kagwa, Stanislus Mugwanya and Zakariya Kisingiri gave out Buganda land including the much-touted 9,000 square miles to the British Crown, religious institutions and other beneficiaries.

Secondly, if a Buganda question exists how has the NRM handled it in the past and present? The Buganda question exists within the larger Ugandan context of an all-round backwardness. Therefore it must be addressed alongside other areas of the country. The NRM is the only regime since feudalism and colonialism to have handled and resolved parts of the so-called Buganda question through democratic means and that is why, despite the jitters from sections in the Mengo establishment, the NRM is socially, politically and electorally acceptable and very popular in Buganda. The Government has paid off and continues to pay colossal sums of public monies to appease Mengo, and has given prominent public jobs to the Baganda as one of the ways of settling the so-called Buganda question.

The NRM has restored all cultural institutions, even the moribund ones, wherever there was popular demand from the locals, who did not seek to impose its respect on those who disagree. In the NRM, Buganda has, not only the best partner, but also a dependable one. Mengo officials are demanding for a special status and yet refuse to be brought under public accountability.

Through the numerous democratic reforms, the NRM has restored the power of decision-making to the Parliament and local councils. It is for this reason that the NRM is firm that anybody or institution that wishes to exercise authority over public matters and resources must either be elected or at least accountable to an elected organ supervised by the Constitution.

In spite of the daily insults in the media, public debates and official meetings at Mengo, the NRM is still willing, ready and capable of meeting the claimants to the Buganda question for a negotiated solution. During the recent NRM MPs’ retreat at Kyankwanzi, President Yoweri Museveni said he would find time to meet Mengo leaders and in particular Kabaka Mutebi. In addition, Museveni is scheduled to meet political leaders from Buganda, especially those in the NRM.

The writer is the deputy spokesperson of the National Resistance Movement
==============================================

Wafula Oguttu

THE demand by Baganda nationalists for a federal state for Buganda (popularly known as federo) is as old as the State of Uganda. But the federo question is not a question for Buganda only. It is for other ethnic groups as well.

Colonialism came to Uganda when many ethnic groups were in varying formative stages of nationhood. Bunyoro and Buganda were in the most advanced stages. In the quest for their interests and anxious to be the dominant power in the region, Buganda’s political class collaborated with the British colonialists to conquer the rest of Uganda. This role earned Mengo a special status, but caused suspicions, hatred and a horse-shoe unity by the people in the east, north and west against the Baganda. The Baganda had assisted the enemy in throtttling these budding nations and taken away their independence. Buganda was, however, not bothered by that. After all, they had a relatively better economy empowered by semi-slavery emigrant labour, they had the most educated Ugandans, they were dominant in the civil service and the seat of the central government was on their soil. What therefore concerned them most was consolidating these achievements into a federal status and managing most of their own affairs. The support, agreements, alliances and deals Buganda’s political class has had with successive governments since 1900 were all geared towards achieving the federal status.

Unfortunately, the trend has been that every time the same political class has always collaborated in the betrayal of the people’s cause after getting something for themselves in the government of the day. Buganda should, however, now have greater hope. History is on their side this time. It is clear the National Resistance Movement (NRM) used them and gave them byoya byasswa (empty promises). But the mistakes and bad governance of the NRM has popularised federo outside Buganda. The NRM’s entrenched corruption, nepotism and discrimination based on ethnicity or region or political affiliation have forced many Ugandans to lose the sense of self-belonging to Uganda as a nation and are now sympathetic to a federo alternative. Some frustrated and desperate political leaders have even called for secession of their deprived nationalities so as to get a piece of the national cake. They have received countrywide support. More nationalities like the Acholi, Banyoro, Iteso, Langi and Lugbara have joined Baganda and indicated clearly that they too want more independence, power and resources to run their own affairs.

More will follow even if we know that federo is not the panacea that will automatically bring good governance and improve the lives of the majority. However, none of those agitating for federo has ever put these demands on paper for consideration by all the citizens. What type of federo do they want? Instead of putting their case before Ugandans and mobilising other nationalities and other political leaders has always chosen to hold secret talks with the Government. Federo could be made an important campaign issue in the next general elections.

Federalists should therefore prepare themselves and go out to negotiate and secure written public agreements with political parties. The FDC’s door is open for negotiations. The NRM has taught Ugandans that we must remove more power and more resources from the centre, most especially from the presidency if we want equitable development for all.

The writer is the Forum for Democratic Change spokesperson

Published on: Saturday, 4th August, 2007

Asymetrical vs. symetrical federalism

2007-08-05T23:46:00.000+03:00

Prof. Mazrui got it wrong on Buganda
Sunday Vision Editorial, 05 Aug 2007

LAST week a renowned African scholar, Prof. Ali Mazrui, suggested that Buganda be accorded a special status. He said that this would solve the friction between Buganda Kingdom and the Central Government.

According to him, Uganda should learn from Quebec Province in Canada, an example of a successful special status region within a country. Mazrui is entitled to his opinion. But he wrongly assumes that what works for Canada is applicable to Uganda, or for that matter, Africa.

He needed African examples to advance his case for Buganda. In addition, he failed to clearly demonstrate how a special status accorded to one region only would impact on the rest of the country.

In effect, Mazrui’s suggestion was simply a call for the return to the 1962 constitutional arrangement that elevated Buganda over the rest of Uganda. Buganda was like a state within a state, to the chagrin of other regions and districts.

The special status was unsustainable and partly responsible for the subsequent political upheavals the country has suffered. It would, therefore, be unwise to return to the system.

Uganda can’t go back to failed experiments but rather should use them to come up with solutions.

And indeed the regional tier system whose implementation has delayed is the answer. Instead of having one special status region, under the regional tier, districts that are willing and have distinct culture or development goals can form a regional block. This way Uganda will have more than one region with special status. It is time to implement the regional tier system.

Published on: Saturday, 4th August, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sunday Vision editorial is actually the one that is wrong.

If only those criticizing Prof Mazrui took time to read what he said. And what did he say? That Canada has asymetrical federalism which has allowed Quebec some autonomy in certain matters such as culture and immigration. That is hardly controversial stuff in a federal system.

The editorial creates the impression that Canada has in place the equivalence of the 1962 Ugandan Constitution. Nothing could be further from the truth. Canada is a full federal state with all the provinces enjoying certain powers under their federal constitution-the BNAC of 1867. The only power Quebec enjoys is the right to pick its immigrants wishing to settle in Quebec for cultural/language reasons. But there is nothing to deter other provinces from getting similar powers. Indeed, other provinces such as Ontario-one of the richest-is asking for the same powers Quebec enjoys.

The oil rich province of Alberta too enjoys certain rights which no other province has-it has no provincial GST/sales tax for example, which is the norm in other provinces. That is federalism at its best. There is certainly nothing wrong with asymmetrical federalism within Canada or Uganda for that matter. The press should not create the impression that somehow within Canada, Quebec is the only province to enjoy federeal status. All provinces and territories do.

Moreover, many provinces - including Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan -depend on the RCMP, the national police force for their policing needs, which is not the case in Ontario which has its own police force. That is the nature of federalism.

The point Professor Mzarui wanted to put acroos is that there is nothing wrong with asymmetrical federalism in Uganda. Buganda, Acholi, Busoga, Bunyoro etc can decide to ask for certian powers under the federal Constitution.

Professor Mazrui was not saying that Buganda alone should have federal status. Rather that Buganda could follow the Quebec experience of asymmetrical federalism within a federal Uganda. Members can read the differences between symetrical and aysmetterical federalism on the http://www.federo.com/ website.

The media as always is putting the cart before the horse.

WBK

The 1966 history set to repeat itself

2007-08-04T22:24:00.000+03:00

They say history repeats itself although some critics counter argue that it's only fools who repeat history. There are latent signs which suggest that not long from now history of 1966 may repeat itself. What happened to the kingdoms at that time might replicate itself.

Grapevine has learnt that there is simmering debate in the inner circles of power on whether monarchies should continue to exist.

Following the 1966 invasion of Mengo, the seat of Buganda monarchy, the Obote government abolished kingdoms in 1967. The monarchists had asked Obote to take away his central government from the capital Kampala to outside Buganda. They even called on the Baganda for mass defiance against the Milton Obote administration.

When President Yoweri Museveni's rebels captured power in 1986, his government reinstated monarchies. After the army High Command meeting in Gulu in April 1992, it was decided that kingdoms be restored and subsequently Muwenda Mutebi was coronated on July 31, 1993 as Buganda's Kabaka. Others followed later.

Grapevine has learnt that some senior security officials are renewing the push for abolition of kingdoms because the monarchs have resumed their "stubbornness".

The move has been provoked by the Buganda's recent riots against resettlement of nomadic Balaalo herdsmen from Buliisa in Kiboga District, which is in Buganda kingdom and Mengo's persistent demand for the return of the 9,000 square miles of land which were allegedly appropriated by the colonial government. The situation has been aggravated by some voices in Buganda calling for Buganda cession.

Some top security gurus are now saying the rising Buganda nationalism will cause a national security problem and the earlier the kingdoms are abolished the better.

They say the government should abolish kingdoms and just compensate Buganda for the land the kingdom is demanding. And the Kabaka should also be compensated for any losses.

They cite the case of Ankole's Prince John Barigye who was denied being crowned as Omugabe (king) and was compensated Shs4 billion for the land the government had appropriated from his king father.

Secondly, the security chiefs are saying after all other kingdoms like Bunyoro and Toro had not been interested in restoration of monarchies but they accepted after Buganda was given, in what appeared to be NRM's appeasement policy. But the kingdoms cannot be abolished without cause. Sources say the agitators are waiting for a provocation from Mengo hardliners, to justify why monarchies should be scrapped.

An alternative plan is to try and persuade Mengo hardliners to go soft on the government or else the 1966 scenario is in the offing.

Do not fear federo, says Mazrui

2007-08-01T00:32:00.000+03:00

News August 1, 2007
ANGELO IZAMA
KAMPALA

Political scientist Ali Mazrui has said Uganda should not be afraid of implementing a federal system of government “just because it is untidy”. “Uganda may still need [a constitutional order] which provides for different paths but guarantees identical citizenship rights,” Prof. Mazrui said while delivering the first Abu Mayanja Memorial Lecture in Kampala on Monday.

Mayanja, who died in 2005, was a co-founder of Uganda’s first political party – the Uganda National Congress in the 1950s. In his lecture titled “Secular Laws and Islamic Values: Abu Mayanja in Comparative Perspective”, Prof. Mazrui said the challenge for many African societies is to find a balance in their “triple heritage”.

He defined heritage as the convergence of the cultural influences of African tradition, Islamic and western cultures. In a sense, Mayanja epitomised those influences being a Muganda, a Muslim, and a western-educated lawyer.

A foundation in Mayanja’s honour was also launched at the same function. Prof. Mazrui, who teaches political science in New York, said Buganda had always struggled because it had distinct characteristics which led to violent clashes in the 1960s that led to the abolition of kingdoms by the government of Milton Obote.

“Buganda became a unique, euro-modern, multi-racial society [that was simultaneously] militantly traditional,” said Prof. Mazrui, who also is a former dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at Makerere University.

He said if handled better, Buganda can still retain its uniqueness within wider Uganda. “Uganda is the only African country to abolish kingdoms only to restore them,” he said.Only last week, Mr Hussein Kyanjo, the opposition Makindye West MP, said Buganda should secede because the central government has failed to honour the kingdom’s interests such as granting it a federal status. Kingdoms were restored in the early 1990s.

The late Abu Mayanja was a Cambridge-trained lawyer who was active in national politics for decades. He served the present government in various Cabinet positions including as attorney general. Mayanja was also an active pan-Africanist, and when he was jailed for sedition in 1968, he was bailed out by an even more enthusiastic pan-Africanist – then Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere.

In the debate over the abolition of kingdoms by the Obote government in 1966, Mayanja argued that the act alone did not mean democracy in the UPC-led government. “He said you may abolish some people’s small kings and end up with a big king,” Prof. Mazrui said.

Don warns Buganda on federo

2007-06-22T12:19:00.000+03:00

Thursday, 21st June, 2007

By Anne Mugisa

The head of the Makerere University political science department has warned that the quest for a federal status by the Baganda elite could spark off conflict.

Dr. Yasin Olum said parts of Uganda, which were subjugated and exploited by Buganda with the help of the colonialists, would demand reparations from the kingdom.

Baganda like Semei Kakungulu are believed to have helped the British control other parts of the country through a divide-and-rule system. Olum noted that the 1966 Buganda crisis had its roots in imbalances created by the colonial masters and warned that reconstructing the old federal system could re-open old wounds.

During the crisis, the army raided Kabaka Mutesa II’s palace in Lubiri, forcing him into flee to exile in Britain.

President Milton Obote thereafter abolished kingdoms.

Olum explained that the 1966 crisis militarised politics and set the stage for the rest of the conflicts like the LRA war. He described the LRA war as ‘a relic of racial anthropology started by colonialists and perpetuated by post-independence leaders.’

Speaking at a peace and reconciliation workshop organised by the Inter-Religious Council of Uganda in Entebbe, Olum blamed the colonialists for creating economic disparities that alienated the northern region from the rest of the country.

He warned that if all Ugandans were not involved in deciding on methods of governance, social and economic development would still be disrupted.

The chairperson of the Uganda Human Rights Commission, Margaret Ssekaggya, asked religious leaders to promote peace.

She said peace building and national reconciliation would require developing religious structures to coordinate the promotion of human rights, justice and forgiveness.

A culture of peace must be reinforced and mechanisms for mediating domestic violence and promoting integrity be developed, Ssekaggya advised.

No Museveni, Kabaka talks on federo - Lukiiko

2007-05-22T22:48:00.000+03:00

News May 23, 2007

ROBERT MWANJE & AL- MAHDI SSENKABIRWA
MENGO

THE President cannot have direct talks with the Kabaka over federo, the Buganda Lukiiko has said. President Museveni recently demanded direct talks with Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi over Buganda's long quest for a federal system of governance.

During last week's sitting, members of the Lukiiko resolved to support the negotiations only when the Kabaka is not directly involved as demanded by the President.Nsuma clan head and Lukiiko member David Kibondwe said it was unacceptable to directly 'drag our King (Kabaka) into these political talks'.

"The Kabaka cannot be fronted when the katikkiro (premier) and his subjects are there. He should appoint a team headed by the katikkiro to represent him," Mr Kibondwe said amidst applause.

Kabaka apoliticalKooki county representative Anania Ssekyanzi supported Mr Kibondwe's proposal, insisting that federo negotiations were too political for the Kabaka who constitutionally and culturally is not supposed to get involved in politics.

"We should not ignore the federo negotiations but it's risky to front the Kabaka. He has representatives, let them negotiate on his behalf," Mr Ssekyanzi said. The Lukiiko is the kingdom's top decision making body.

The kingdom interim katikkiro Emmanuel Ssendaula said they were ready to negotiate with the government in close consultation with the Kabaka. President Museveni said direct negotiations with the Kabaka would yield fruit unlike the previous talks central government held with a team from Mengo led by then Katikkiro Joseph Mulwanyamuli Semwogerere.

Mr Semwogerere was succeeded by Dan Muliika who was relieved of his duties early this year. Mr Muliika continued the negotiations with the government but he was viewed as a hardliner and uncompromising. The negotiations have since been postponed.

Recently, Information and National Guidance Minister Kirunda Kivejinja confirmed the negotiations would continue but was noncommittal on when they would resume."There is no barrier for fresh negotiations between the two parties. But we have not yet fixed the date," he said.

The negotiations hit a dead-end in mid 2005 after both parties failed to agree on a number of issues. The government reportedly offered the Mengo team a regional tier system of governance instead of federo.

The Lukiiko unanimously rejected the regional tier months after Parliament had passed the proposal. Under the regional tier, the Katikkiro is elected under adult suffrage contrary to Mengo's tradition of the Kabaka naming his katikkiro.

After assuming office in February, Mr Ssendaula said the kingdom would get federo through non confrontational means and would never rest until it is achieved. He said Mengo would lobby MPs and State House.

Speaking on one FM station late last year, the President said he was not happy about Mengo's decision to reject the regional tier.

Unitary federo vs federo unitarism

2007-05-15T23:37:00.000+03:00

Political tolerance is vital
Monday, 14th May, 2007

Peter Mulira

When I resigned from the Mengo cabinet citing intolerance of divergent ideas, the then chairman of the bataka (clans) council issued a press statement in which he called me an aduyi or enemy of Buganda’s interests.

To add insult to injury, he went on to state that they had all along known me to be President Museveni’s spy in the cabinet and as such my departure was good riddance thereby in an unwitting way justifying the reasons for my resignation.

As if that was not enough, a caller into a radio programme I was appearing on poured scorn on “those Museveni spies on Mengo” and in the stuccatto voices of a village bumpkin prayed earnestly God help them and “kill those miscreants”.

When my brother Dr Ham Mulira, was appointed a minister another caller volunteered that Museveni had rewarded me for my good spy work while Betty Kamya curiously advised me to leave Buganda’s affairs alone and concentrate on planning my retirement which I had done before we heard of her. All these fulmications illustrate the level of intolerance to divergent ideas our society has reached as well as the thin line between the concept of freedom of speech and its transgression over which many radio stations hover. This freedom has limitations. For example, one cannot run into a crowded theatre shouting “ fire, fire” when he knows there is no fire and invoke the right to free speech when apprehended for causing a stampede. His action is likely to cause him social and legal sanctions.

Many radio stations are in the habit of allowing people to shout slanders on their airwaves in disregard of the law. I earned the airwave insults simply because I took a universalist approach to the federo issue.

Although sometimes I get confused when the neo-traditionalists talk about federo my commitment to federalism as opposed to federo, a system of governance, is as total as it can be and I have written more articles in support of the system perhaps more than anybody else, a fact which earned me an invitation by the US State Department to go the United states at its generous expense and study how the American federal system works in practice. On my return, I was even more convinced of the virtues of federalism in contradiction to unitarism and started asking some hard questions as to where federal supporters could have taken a wrong turning.

One thing which I realised was that the sine qua non of federalism was regional autonomy which allows people to manage their affairs within their cultural, geographical and economic context. The other elements such as constitutional entrenchments are mere mechanisms to protect this autonomy to make it work unimpeded.

Viewed in this way, federalism has as many hews as the number of countries which practise them.

The American forefathers who first gave us the federal concept over 200 years ago drawing from the experience of the ancient biblical 12 tribes of Israel and the red Indian Inca empire created a federal constitution with subsidiary unitary features while the Indian constitution which was promulgated in 1950 taking from the Canadian experience created a unitary state with subsidiary federal features.

Secondly, I discovered that all the federal states in the world were preceded by autonomy of their component parts. In America, the 11 colonies which had won their independence from Britain came together to form the US union while in India the autonomous provinces which created the Government of India Act, 1935, of the British parliament transformed into the independence states.

All the federal states in the commonwealth followed the same route, in the case of South Africa via the Bantustan states. Here in Uganda, Buganda’s autonomy came in its constitution of 1961 one year before it gained independence on October 8, 1962 and ‘united’ with independent Uganda the following day. This federal arrangement was torpedoed by Milton Obote’s constitution of 1967 when Uganda became a fully fledged unitary state.

The question for supporters of federalism is do we want to introduce a federal state with unitary features or a unitary state with federal features? Luckily, Buganda’s proposals to the Uganda Constitution Review Commission, 2003, answers the question for us when at page 72 it states that Buganda does not want to return to the 1962 federal system and goes on “a federal system that was suitable in 1962 certainly needs modifications to make it work in the year 2003”. This means that the option is on a unitary arrangement with federal features but how do we get to this stage? We must first devolve power and functions to regions which desire autonomy and this is exactly what the constitutional amendment to article 178 of the constitution does.

After these autonomous regions are in place we can start talking of federal states as was the case in India. Scotland in the UK followed this route to autonomy and so did the Basques in Spain and the Flemish in Belgium as well as the northern region of Italy. To reject regionalism in total because we ask for federo shows a certain lack of understanding of the federo idea.

Simply put, federalism means the union of autonomous regions which share state power between the central, regional or state and local governments. Federo, on the other hand, is not a system but a generic term for the quantum of autonomy of a region or regions first invented by the former MP from Masaka, Mr. Patrick Kiggundu.

FedsNet Blogger: See The UK as a Quasi-federo State!

Museveni 19th richest president

2007-04-17T20:53:00.000+03:00

List of heads of government and state by net worth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of heads of state and government by the net worth of their liquid assets. This list does not include property and other material goods.
1. Hassanal Bolkiah -Sultan of Brunei - $28 billion
2. Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms, - total assets $21 billion
3. Abdullah of Saudi Arabia - King of Saudi Arabia - $21 billion
4. Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahayan, President of the United Arab Emirates - $19 billion
5. Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Prime Minister and Vice President of the United Arab Emirates, ruler of Dubai - $14 billion
6. Henri, Grand Duke of Luxembourg - $5 billion
7. Beatrix, Queen of the Netherlands - $4.7 billion[1]
8. Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Chairman of the Expediency Discernment Council of Iran, and his family - $4.1 billion
9. Hans-Adam II, Prince of Liechtenstein - $4 billion
10. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Prime Minister of Turkey - $2 billion
11. Albert II, Prince of Monaco - $1 billion
12. Fidel Castro, President of Cuba - $900 million (disputed [1][2] Forbes estimate based on Cuba's GDP [3])
13. Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, President of Equatorial Guinea - $600 million
14. Harald V, King of Norway - $240 million
15. Mswati III, King of Swaziland - $50 million
16. Ferenc Gyurcsány, Prime Minister of Hungary - $16 million [4]
17. Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu, Prime Minister of Romania - $15 million
18. George W. Bush, President of the United States - $15 million
19. Yoweri Museveni, President of Uganda - $11 million
20. Margrethe II, Queen of Denmark - $10 million
21. Carl XVI Gustaf, King of Sweden - $9 million
22. Jacques Chirac, President of the French Republic - $9 million
23. Helen Clark, Prime Minister of New Zealand - $5 million
24. Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt - $5 million
25. Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - $3 million
26. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Philippines - $1.3 million

Tanzanians say no to East African Federation

2007-04-16T23:53:00.000+03:00

News April 17, 2007
JOYCE KISAKA
DODOMA

About 80 per cent of Tanzanians who have responded to the Wangwe Commission, which is collecting views on the fast-tracking of the East African Political Federation, have said they are not for the idea.

Although the views’ collecting mission is not complete, with just 55 per cent of the Mainland and 20 per cent of the Isles covered so far, sources within the Ministry of East Africa told The Citizen last week that the mid term review, conducted early this month, has revealed that 10 regions in the Mainland have totally rejected the political federation plan.

Sources said it was not a secret within the Wangwe Commission that Tanzania is not interested in the political federation. In fact, sources say, what the officials are doing is simply to go through the formalities because the exercise on views’ collection must be completed and people's views registered. "Reports that Zanzibaris are not ready are not mere rumours either, this is true for Zanzibar wants to remain as it is," one source said.

The exercise is expected to come to an end by next month when the report on what Tanzanians have decided will be handed over to PresidentJakaya Kikwete . The report is expected to form the basis for determining the fate of the federation.

The three commissions collecting locals’ views in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda met in Arusha on April 2 to compare notes after the midterm review and each of them got the chance to explain their position before they jointly finalised a strategy on how to complete the exercise.

Following this meeting, Prof Samuel Wangwe, who heads the Tanzanian commission, told journalists last week in a press conference that the review was not meant to compare statistics as to how many people want the Federation, instead it aimed to review how far the exercise had gone and what have been the challenges and improvements that are needed.

He further told the media that in Tanzania, his commission met many challenges especially with regards to people's scanty understanding of the federation. This scenario forced them to embark on educating people on the matter before they asked them to give opinions.

Federo is not a Buganda only issue

2007-04-02T22:25:00.000+03:00

MR Gawaya Tegulle’s article “Buganda leadership should seek alternative to federo” published in Daily Monitor on March 7 can be appreciated in the context that President Museveni is not about to grant federal status to Buganda.

But I strongly oppose the writer’s idea of pegging federalism to Buganda. Refer to the book “On the Kabaka’s road for Uganda” written by Joseph Muwanga. This most readable account treats federalism as a national issue. Muwanga discusses more than ten sound reasons why it should be good for Uganda.

One, it would help correct the current imbalance in regional development. Under federalism, each region would “grow” its capital city.

Two, is what Muwanga terms the “Winner Region syndrome”, a product of the over concentration of power, money jobs, and influence at the centre. Since independence, this has moved along a cycle. From the north, to the north western and now south western region. The rule is that the home area of the head of government becomes the “winner region”, a fact which is resented by the other regions.

Kris. O. Opiyo,
Kampala

Federo and democratic governance

2007-03-30T22:50:00.000+03:00

One of the controversial political issues in Uganda today is that of federalism (particularly for Buganda); what are your views on this matter?

This is an important debate, not only in Uganda, but also in many other countries. The debate is essentially about two things: how to truly democratise governance, and how to celebrate diversity within a fabric of unity. I believe that power should be located at the closest proximity to those whose lives are seriously affected by its exercise. I also believe that one can be, for example, a proud Muganda (celebrating the rich kiganda heritage, history and culture) and a patriotic Ugandan at the same time; I see no contradiction in this two-tier identity.

OLARA OTUNNU is a former UN Special Representative for children in armed conflict areas. Now president of LBL Foundation for Children, an independent organisation devoted to promoting protection, hope, healing and rehabilitation for children in communities devastated by war

Buganda leadership should seek alternatives to ‘federo’

2007-03-07T22:29:00.000+03:00

Inside Politics March 7 - 13, 2007
Buganda leadership should seek alternatives to ‘federo’
GAWAYA TEGULLE

One of those fascinating incidents which Ugandans seem to have decided to forget happened 13years ago. The year was 1993, and the country was gearing up for the restoration of traditional institutions in general.

But of particular import was that the much-longed for and even more-talked-about restoration of the Buganda Kingdom was at hand. Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi was warming up to formally step into the shoes of his father Sir Edward Mutesa II.

But just when it looked like everything was okay, some smart lawyer woke up and moved to seek an injunction against the proceedings. His name was Kenneth Kakuru, very brilliant as a lawyer, but with a penchant for stirring up trouble at just the wrong moments.

Waving the 1967 Republican Constitution, Kakuru argued that the restoration of kingship was unconstitutional.

Realising the impending catastrophe, President Yoweri Museveni simply called an emergency session of the legislature - the National Resistance Council, NRC - which amended the offending constitutional provisions to accommodate the restoration of traditional institutions. On July 31 that year, Ronald Mutebi was crowned King of Buganda.

The move established what has now become a pattern of the Museveni administration: when the President makes up his mind to do something, he will bend every rule to accomplish it - you don't have to coerce or beg him.

This 1993 incident does come to mind largely for purposes of contrast, following the recent sacking of Buganda Katikkiro (Premier) Dan Muliika who was appointed with specific instructions to deliver what, try as she might, Buganda has still failed to achieve: federalism or 'federo'.

Conservative, radical and ruthless, Muliika was a complete contrast of his predecessor Joseph Mulwanyamuli Ssemwogerere who had perfected the art of diplomacy; able to discuss the most unpleasant issues with a smile, rather than the smirk which we have been accustomed to seeing on Muliika's face as he made his case for 'federo'. Apparently Mulwanyamuli's diplomacy was interpreted as weakness and some thought that what the Museveni administration needed was a dose of ruthlessness. The overtures of the two former Katikiros have proved what Buganda ought to know by now: neither diplomacy nor strong-arm tactics will move President Museveni to grant 'federo'.

President Museveni does hold the key to Buganda's 'federo' aspirations. But truth is that as long as he stays in State House, the 'federo' issue will remain a distant dream.

If he had thought it important to give 'federo' to Buganda, he'd have bent or broken every rule in the book to get it done.

But the President clearly recognises that 'federo' would fundamentally undermine the process of nation building. You cannot build a modern nation by dividing it up along tribal lines. Neither would his successors (he is surely lining up those, and the keen eye can in fact identify some of them already) depart from this position.

Evidence suggests that the President holds the view that in modern statecraft, traditional rulers should remain cultural icons, symbols of good conscience, reflections of our social values and aspirations, and instruments of social cohesion, rather than political entities in themselves.

Britain herself has been from time to time debating the relevancy of the royal family, including things like whether or not the Queen should be taxed.

A look at the royalty in Japan, Netherlands, Belgium and the like tells you that the trend worldwide is for monarchs to be as far from politics as possible, just remaining symbols of social norms and aspirations around which the people rally.

As a good politician, all the President is doing is keep Buganda talking, without getting anywhere concrete. That is negotiation at its best.

The big surprise is that Buganda has up to now failed to discern that the Museveni administration really has no intention of granting 'federo'.

It is like endlessly submitting marriage proposals to a woman who is diplomatically and ever so subtly, sending quiet signals that her heart - and mind - are elsewhere.

Even when playing the almost mandatory hard-to-get that ladies love to put up for a while, making a man go round in circles, a lady who will say 'yes' often leaves some clues that all is not lost and that if the man loves her enough to pursue further, he will get her. In this case, the Museveni administration has already spoken its mind unequivocally, but Buganda has not yet discerned the reality.

Part of the problem seems to be that Buganda is not bowing to the winds of change that have engulfed the world and made certain dispositions untenable. Buganda has chosen to resist change, refusing even the slightest modification that would allow them to fit in, and preferring to live in the past.

Even by independence (1962), Buganda wanted to be restored to its pre-colonial position as a kingdom, accorded preferential treatment over other areas, and generally lead life as though the colonialists had never been or independence and statehood had never been granted to the entity we now know as Uganda.

Buganda has painted 'federo' as the magical formula, which, once it arrives, will turn everything right side up, then Buganda will live happily ever after - which is of course not true at all, since people would still have to work hard for development (and in a poor country, some things will always take long to change anyway, federo or no federo).

'Federo' ought to remain a vision; something distant that Buganda yearns and aspires for; not an immediate achievable target that so much time, money and energy should be spent on. Buganda therefore has a choice. Either continue being radical and rigid about getting 'federo' (and get nothing), or adapt (bend) to the winds of change and develop workable alternatives.

For example in Japan, until September 2006 when the Emperor's younger son (Prince Akishino) gave birth to a boy, bringing an end to what had been a succession of girl children born into the royal family, the Japanese had considered amending their Imperial House Law to allow for a female to ascend to the throne.

In fact, if Mengo were prudent, they would at a time like this, appoint a sober consultancy to establish how the kingdom can take advantage of the present circumstances and move forward, see what opportunity lies in the apparent 'difficulty', instead of trying to push an obstacle that has no intention of moving.

The consultants could also draw examples from how traditional institutions in other countries are managing to fit within their societies and how they relate to the broader superstructure called a nation.

Generally, Ugandans need to begin thinking as Ugandans rather than as members of certain tribes. Nation building includes integration of cultures and peoples and we must move towards that.

Buganda therefore ought to be thinking of how to preserve her culture rather than see nation-building through cultural integration as a threat to her own existence.

In choosing to pursue 'federo' relentlessly, Buganda must be commended for her earnestness and never-give-up attitude. But more importantly, she ought to look again and do a reality check to make sure she is not, under the guise of seeking 'federo', failing to prioritise her needs and in the process, sapping much-needed energies needlessly, losing allies and making even fewer friends.

Museveni, Kabaka to meet for fresh talks on federo

2007-03-07T00:27:00.000+03:00

ROBERT MWANJE & AL-MAHDI SSENKABIRWA

MENGOPRESIDENT Yoweri Museveni has expressed desire to resume Federo negotiations with Buganda Kingdom, Daily Monitor has learnt. He, however, wants to speak directly to Kabaka Ronald Mutebi.

READY: Mutebi

Optimistic: Museveni

Daily Monitor has learnt that Mr Museveni believes direct negotiations with the Kabaka would yield fruit unlike the previous talks central government held with a team from Mengo.

Buganda Kingdom Information Minister Medard Sseggona Lubega in a statement dated February 28 confirmed they had received communication from the government to resume the negotiations.

"The Kingdom has learnt that President Yoweri Museveni has accepted to resume federo negotiations with Buganda. We are grateful to the President for having understood our concerns," read part of the statement.

Also to be discussed is the issues of Buganda Land. Information and National Guidance Minister Kirunda Kivejinja yesterday confirmed the negotiations but was noncommittal on when they would resume.

"This is a declaration of intention indicating that there is no barrier for fresh negotiations between the two parties. But we have not yet fixed the date," he said yesterday.Federo negotiations hit a dead-end in mid 2005 after both parties failed to agree on various issues.

The government reportedly offered the Mengo team a regional tier system of governance instead of the kingdom's much cherished federo. The Buganda Lukiiko (Parliament) unanimously rejected the regional tier system; months after Parliament had passed the proposal. The new regional tier arrangement dictates that the katikkiro of Buganda be elected under adult suffrage contrary to Mengo's tradition of the Kabaka naming his katikkiro.

Electing a katikkiro was not well received by the Baganda. Speaking at a local FM station late last year, the President said he was not happy about Mengo' decision to reject the regional tier.

"I am arranging to meet the Kabaka over federo issues because we discussed these issues with his team at Nakasero. He even sent me clan heads but later the Lukiiko dismissed everything and this annoyed me," Mr Museveni said then.

FedsNet Blogger: Isn't the first citizen in Uganda enticing a cultural leader into politics. Isn't this breaking the law as per Museveni Constitution, 1995? You be the judge!

Revisiting federo debate in Buganda Kingdom

2007-03-04T23:57:00.000+03:00

Moses Byaruhanga

Recently the Kabaka made changes at Mengo. When the new team took office, they renewed the fight for federalism which in Buganda is known as federo, and the return of the 9,000 square miles of land.

These two subjects are talked about by Mengo people with a lot of emotion and in some cases not well explained. When one talks of federalism, what does he really mean? Federalism is the sharing of power between various levels of administration, with the federal government at the top, with state or provincial governments below.

In some cases within a state or a province you have lower governments like districts or counties. The leaders at various levels in a federal system are elected by the voters. When the federo issue came up again during the constitutional amendments government took cognisance of the existing power sharing within the country between the central and local governments.

There was general agreement between those who were advancing federo and the central government leaders that the powers at district level should not be tampered with. The issue then was what powers should be given to a level higher than the district. The central government agreed to cede some powers on education, health, intra-district roads etc.

The other subject of concern was how should leadership at the regional level be determined? The government position was that they should be elected. The federo team wanted some leaders appointed by the Kabaka who is constitutionally barred from engaging in politics.

The argument of government was that in a modern world of multiparty politics where leaders at various levels compete on party basis, how do you appoint a leader at a regional government?
The leaders at Mengo who are resurrecting the federo debate should answer these questions. It is pertinent to note how history has shaped other monarchies in the world. In Britain, at one time before the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the monarch was absolute. However, with democratic evolution the monarchy in Britain left administration to the elected leaders.

Parties compete and when one party wins elections, the monarch retains a constitutional role of conferring the instruments of power to the Prime Minister. The monarch does not make a choice of who becomes the Prime Minister.

My challenge to Mengo and some of the opposition groups who, for opportunistic reasons, promise federo to Mengo is how do you mix monarchism with democracy today? Monarchs nowadays have only non-partisan roles like that of the Queen in England.

Even here in Uganda with colonialism which gave birth to the 1900 and the 1955 Buganda agreements, the powers of the monarch were greatly reduced to the extent that the Kabaka could no longer appoint any minister, including the Katikiro, without the approval of the colonial administration.

On the 9,000 square miles, at the time of the 1900 agreement, Buganda had approximately 17,000 square miles. Out of this 8,000 square miles were portioned out to 1,000 leaders including the Kabaka who was given 350 square miles.

Imagine the whites being the ones giving the Kabaka land in his own kingdom where prior to the agreement he held all the land in trust. The other 9,000 square miles went to the crown. On both lands there were local people who were tilling. Those who were on the 8,000 square miles became tenants and started paying busulu (a tax) to the new landlords who never bought the said land.

Various legislations since then have put the 9,000 square miles under various controls. When Mengo talks about this land they give the impression that it is lying somewhere being held by the state. To cut a long story short, whoever is in Buganda and is not on malio land in on that land.

All those who have land titles and bibanja outside the mailo land are what the Mengo talks about when it demands the 9,000 square miles. Government has rejected demands for restitution of this land. After all the 1995 constitution gives ownership of land io the citizen dwelling on it.

That which is not occupied or allocated was vested in the district land boards. On the current debate on whether to transform mailo land into freehold system of tenure, my view is that the two are the same and in order to avoid political confusion mailo system of land tenure should be maintained.

The writer is Special Presidential Assistant on Political Affairs.
political@infocom.co.ug

Tooro PM in for regional tier system

2007-02-28T23:36:00.000+03:00

Tooro PM in for regional tier system
JOSEPH MUGISA

KABAROLEThe tier system of governance is good provided it doesn't conflict with the customs of the people, according to the Prime Minister of Tooro kingdom."What we want as a kingdom is peace, development, and unity and if the regional tier will bring this, then I have no problem with it," Mr Stephen Irumba told scribes recently in Fort Portal town.

Mr Irumba, popularly known as Omutima Gw'Ihanga, was briefing journalists about the kingdom's new year plans.

"Our culture should remain uninterrupted by the new system," he said, adding that his fear was that the tier provides for election of a premier under universal adult suffrage instead of the king appointing the chief minister .

"This would mean usurping the powers of the king and rendering him useless," he said.Buganda kingdom has fervently opposed the regional tier in preference to a federal system of governance commonly called federo.

The newly appointed premier said that as soon as he announces a new cabinet, the team would focus on poverty eradication, sensitising the people on the importance of cultural institutions and fighting illiteracy.

The premier said Tooro is facing a financial crisis and needs support from the central government and individuals.

He commended the Bakiga and Bafumbira resident in Tooro for supporting the kingdom financially and materially. Mr Irumba urged local governments in Kamwenge, Kyenjojo and Kabarole which form the kingdom, to consider remitting some funds to the cultural body.

Asked why he had taken long to announce his cabinet, the premier said he was still consulting.

Buganda won’t give up Federo - Kabaka

2007-02-27T22:53:00.000+03:00

By Henry Mukasa

Monday, 26th February, 2007

ONE PEOPLE: The Kabaka (centre) waves to his subjects before opening the 15th Lukiiko

BUGANDA will never waver in its demand for federalism and repossession of her land taken by the central government, Kabaka Ronald Mutebi has declared.

The Kabaka pointed out that the 1962 Constitution gave the kingdom a federal status and returned land that was taken from it by colonialists. However, he added, former president Apollo Obote reversed the gains in 1966. It is then that Obote abolished kingdoms and forced Kabaka Mutesa II into exile.

Mutebi observed that the Baganda clearly demanded federo during the submission for proposals before the making of the 1995 Constitution and during the process of reviewing it under the Ssempebwa Commission.

“Buganda’s stand has not changed. The struggle for federo is enormous. And I am aware it will not be won by one person or a few people. We have to fight on, united as one block,” Mutebi asserted.

In response to the notion that his sacking of the Katikkiro Dan Muliika was due to political interference, Mutebi observed that although political differences were healthy and brought development, they should not divide the people.

He added: “Under the Constitution the kingdom is barred from partisan politics. Indeed we cannot prosper when we are divided. Differences in opinions should not breed hatred.”

On allegations that the kingdom was riddled by corruption, the Kabaka noted that he instituted a royal commission headed by A. Ntate in May 2002 to probe the income and expenditure of Buganda.

He called upon the Lukiiko (Buganda parliament) to debate the findings of that commission. “We shall relentlessly work to streamline accountability at Mengo,” Mutebi vowed.

The king also urged his subjects to work for personal development and observed that since the 1970s, the living standards of the Baganda had been deteriorating due to a slump in cotton prices and destruction of coffee by the coffee wilt disease.

Kabaka Mutebi made the remarks yesterday while opening the 15th session of the Buganda Lukiiko at Bulange, Mengo. His wife, Nabagereka Sylivia Nagginda and other royals attended.

At the same function, three new ministers were introduced. They are Edward Lutaaya Mukomazi (agriculture), Fred Masagazi (education) and Medard Lubega (information).

Baganda are wrong on Muliika, federo

2007-02-24T23:39:00.000+03:00

Opinions
Edward Mulindwa
Toronto, CANADA

The exit of Katikkiro Dan Muliika has been a major issue of late. Some Ugandans even demonstrated at Bulange, Mengo, against Mr Muliika's dismissal. Although some Baganda had developed love for Mr Muliika, I wonder whether it was based on an understanding of the man or on ignorance; ignorance of how Buganda runs, and how he or any other Katikkiro comes to and leaves power.

Many have been politically biased over this issue and yet Mengo is not a political entity; it's cultural. While appointing Mr Muliika, Kabaka Ronald Mutebi based his decision on grounds that we are not privy to. And that is what our culture dictates. He has power to hire and fire, without giving reasons.

But what surprised me most was that a man of Mr Muliika's age could challenge the Kabaka to explain why he fired him!

Federalism
But let us look at another issue. Many people have argued that Mr Muliika was fired because he was fighting for federalism. We however need to discuss this issue further because many Baganda and other Ugandans do not seem to understand it.

There are mainly two political systems; unitary and federal. Uganda is currently running on a unitary system. Deciding what system should take centre stage in Uganda is not arrived at from a cultural but rather from a political basis. So, Mengo cannot demand federalism in isolation of other Ugandans.

To federate means that regions in a given country want to live together - and use some assets collectively but exert some control over other assets. For example, Buganda can decide to control its immigration laws but also depend on the national army for its defence.

True federo
Canada, in which I live, is a federal state. However, Quebec [a part of Canada] has [after many years] refused to sign the Canadian Constitution because it is not in its best interest to do so.

When regions of a given country agree on what [assets or services] they will combine and what they cannot combine, they then endorse a final document of understanding, which they try to sell to the central government. The latter then makes a decision based on several other factors -- but many of which are based on "what is in it for it [the central government".

Piece of advice
If Mengo or Buganda wants federalism, then they ought to start the campaign in Lango, Karamoja, Ankole and Kigezi regions, etc. They need to convince others of the need to federate. Then and only then can they come up with a final memoranda of understanding and present it to the central government.

I therefore disagree with folks who claim that Mr Muliika was fighting for Buganda's federalism. With whom were you going to federate? In that federation, what were you going to gain or lose?

The more you look at this issue, the more you realise that Buganda is acting with an "I do not care about any one in Uganda," attitude, which is wrong. And if that is the case, then we are not looking for federo but rather to secede. And if to secede is what we want then let us state so boldly.

mulindwa@look.ca

FedsNet Blogger: Federo is not equivalent to secession as this article struggles to suggest!
http://www.federo.com

The federal system works

2007-02-18T20:29:00.000+03:00

February 18 - 24, 2007
SUNDAY COMMENT
Monsignor J. Wynand KatendeLink

With effect from February 2007, the Catholic Archdiocese of Kampala will be governed under a federal system. Different pastoral zones and commissions have been created and entrusted with Episcopal Vicars, who will exercise delegated powers from the Archbishop.

This arrangement will go a long way to realise the principle of subsidiarity. This principle is a call to guarantee a space for both personal and collective responsible participation, at all levels. It endows the people of God to identify local needs and solve them as locally as possible.

A higher organisation must not, therefore, claim for itself the functions which the lower organisation can perform adequately. If, in case of disability, the higher organisation takes over, then the main purpose should be to enable the lower organisation resume its role as soon as possible.

On the other hand, it is equally socially unjust if a lower organisation arrogates to itself functions that can be fulfilled for the common good only by a higher organisation. According to E.F. Schumacher, "the burden of proof lies always on those who want to deprive a lower level of its functions and thereby of its freedom and responsibility. Good governance is always government by exception. Except for exceptional cases, the subsidiary unit must be defended and upheld".

The principle of subsidiarity does not work automatically, however; it calls for a level of maturity that comes with education of people for personal responsibility and co-responsibility. Church and society must work to establish structures that encourage people's readiness and capacity to accept responsibility.

"The legacy of Catholicism's concept of subsdiarity is a loud cry for liberty, freedom of choice, voluntary association, local community and pluralism of custom and manner", comments B.V. Manno (Subsidiarity and Pluralism: A Social Philosophy Perspective).

This goes a long way to realise a self-governing, self-propagating and self-sustaining church. The doctrine of subsidiarity was introduced in the Church by Pope Pius XI (1922-1939). "If the principle of subsidiarity is applied faithfully, there will soon no longer exist a world divided into rulers and the ruled," said Pope John XXIII (1958-1963). The Catholic Church in Uganda is already enjoying success under the four federal metropolitan provinces governed by four archbishops.

As a political entity, Uganda could also offer a good case for federalism, as already agitated by some regions and an arrangement that has already proved viable in the past.

Federo giving government sleepless nights!

2007-02-12T23:47:00.000+03:00

News February 13, 2007
Government plans to oust Mengo team - Kiggundu
JUDE LUGGYA
KAMPALA

MEMBERS of the Buganda Forum, a cultural pressure group, alleged yesterday that they had unearthed a plot by the Central government to oust the Mengo establishment and throw the monarchy into a crisis similar to that of 1966. Buganda Forum champions mainly Buganda’s interests.

The members led by their chairman Sulaiman Kiggundu told journalists in Kampala yesterday that they had learnt that the plot to oust the Mengo team was being pushed by State House.

Dr Kiggundu (right), who is also the national chairman of the opposition FDC, said several meetings had already been held.

The Minister for the Presidency Beatrice Wabudeya, however, dismissed the claims yesterday as a concoction. “All those meetings in State House are just somebody’s imagination. Why should we be concerned about Buganda only. The Batoro, Banyoro etc have kingdoms too,” she said.

Dr Kiggundu said the meetings are largely meant to lay strategy for weakening the Mengo establishment.

He said the meetings that have been held in State House and several other venues have taken place since June last year.

Dr Kiggundu said several central government ministers; their colleagues in the Mengo government, former Mengo ministers, Buganda elders and some employees in various Mengo institutions have attended the clandestine meetings.

He produced a September 28, 2006 correspondence from the Principle Private Secretary to the President Amelia Kyambadde inviting the Vice President Gilbert Bukenya to one of the meetings to discuss the Buganda Lukiiko.

Reads the letter; “This is to inform you that H.E the President will chair a meeting on Friday November 10, 2006 on the above subject [Buganda Lukiiko] at State House Nakasero.”

“By copy of this letter, relevant people have been informed. The protocol officer will communicate the exact time of this appointment through your Principle Private Secretary,” Mrs Kyambadde’s letter reads.

“We have been saddened that it was resolved in these meetings that the Kabaka sacks his Katikkiro Dan Muliika so that a weaker person is appointed to replace Muliika. The preferred person is one who would nod as the Kabaka’s Kingdom is destroyed,” Dr Kiggundu said.

“Mr Muliika is regarded by the Central government as a stumbling block to the regional tier system of government. He [Muliika] has re-energised Buganda’s quest for federo. Even other areas like Acholi have seen the advantages of federo which is giving the government sleepless nights,” he said.

Mengo launches federo campaign

2007-02-07T01:31:00.000+03:00

Tuesday, 6th February, 2007

By Luke Kagiri

The Buganda government on Saturday launched a campaign to sensitise the public on good leadership, culture, economic development and the federal system of governance.

The drive was launched at the Ssaza hall in Mityana town by the chairperson of the Buganda youth council, Joseph Kawuki. Present was Mityana South MP Ssozi Kaddu Mukasa.

Kawuki, who is also the commissioner for education in Buganda kingdom, said Kabaka Ronald Mutebi gave the order to sensitise masses on development to the youth.

“We have started from Mityana in Ssingo county, but we shall go to Kyaggwe at Mugulu on Saturday. We expect to cover other counties in the coming weeks,” he said.

He explained that the seminars would address the increasing immorality and help people to preserve their culture.

Kawuki said Buganda would sensitise the public on the federal system of governance first before Uganda goes into the East African Federation.

Speaking at the opening of the first seminar, Mukasa said the federal system of governance was the basis of good leadership.

“It respects the cultures of different societies. It is the only system which can ensure good leadership,” Mukasa explained.

He appealed to the public to avoid discrimination basing on political beliefs.

“Let us unite for development,” he said.

Create four federal states in Uganda

2006-11-17T10:16:00.000+03:00

Thursday, 16th November, 2006

I am happy that the people of Acholi have come out to demand the creation of four federal states in Uganda (Daily Monitor, September 30).

This is what the Baganda have all along been demanding. Therefore this is the time for all Ugandans to come out boldly and request President Yoweri Museveni to convene a national conference in March 2007 to discuss and approve the creation of the four federal states. The Acholi are the dominant tribe in northern Uganda.

Both Baganda and Acholi have been instrumental in the politics of Uganda since before independence. Before independence the Acholi had the biggest number of educated people in the north.

They had the biggest number of people in the army, police and prisons. Even the Kabaka’s police at Mengo had a big number of Acholi before 1966. Therefore this group cannot be wished away easily.

I call upon MPs, political party leaders, religious leaders, elders, farmers, traders, women leaders and university communities to approach the President and request him to grant the four federal states.

The federal states should be names as follows: lBuganda, to be under the Kabaka and the Buganda Lukiiko lRwenzori, comprising Bunyoro, Toro, Ankole and Kigezi. lMasaba, comprising Busoga, Bukedi, Teso, Bugisu, Sebei and Karamoja.

Nile, comprising Lango, Acholi and West Nile. The tribal kings in those states will retain their status and traditions. I have suggested geographical names (except in the case of Buganda) because they are neutral and I believe they will be acceptable to the people concerned.

The collection of taxes will by both the state governments and the federal government and shared equally (where possible) between the two entities. An acceptable system of tax collection can be worked out.

The creation of federal states is in line with the “back to the land policy” which we must adopt now in Uganda. Through this policy people will be encouraged, assisted and persuaded to go back to their rural areas and develop those areas.

Some Baganda elders plan to meet the Katikkiro of Buganda and introduce this plan to him. This plan will be the driving force in Buganda to eradicate poverty. This new system will, above all, make the young Baganda know and understand the value of their land. The system of selling land will be reviewed so that the people will be assisted to use t heir land profitably instead of selling.

The “back to land policy” in the case of B uganda will bet to take the young Baganda back to the land for farming on a small scale and large scale.

The Kabaka’s government will be encouraged to establish “Buganda State Farms” and thousands of young Baganda will work and manage those farms.

We have had the unitary system for the last 41 years which Milton Obote introduced in 1966.

Ugandans know that we have spent almost all these years in tribal conflicts. Under the unitary system we had the small tribe ruling a big tribe and in the process the small tribe did everything possible to undermine the big tribe.

The unitary system has completely failed to develop Uganda economically. Under the federal system, the tribes in the west, north, east and Buganda will rule themselves. Parliament will be the unifying factor.

Finally I would like to assure the people of Uganda that the federal system of government is the best for Uganda. I call upon Joseph Kony and his LRA and the people of Acholi to end the war so that we embark on the task of developing our country.

The state governments will be able to acquire loans for economic development from both local banks and foreign sources.

UPC rows caused the 1966 crisis

2006-09-27T00:31:00.000+03:00

Monday, 25th September, 2006

Peter Mulira
A LEARNED FRIEND WITH A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Although the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) has been largely at loggerheads with the central region for the greater part of its 40 six years of existence, its greatest handicap has always been its internal contradictions and intrigues.

The party’s tenure in government has twice been terminated by military coups carried out by once trusted supporters in the army. The 1966 crisis which changed the face of this country was preceded by infights and struggles for power within the party.

To understand the life and times of UPC one has to start with the direct elections to the legislative council (Legco) which were held in 1958 two years before the formation of the party.

Buganda boycotted the elections, much to its disadvantage, as later events proved. Out of the 10 elected members of the legco, five belonged to the Uganda National Congress (UNC) one to DP and the rest registered as independents.

With Buganda absent on the national scene, the 10 representaitves soon saw the opportunity for snatching national leadership from the central province where all the political parties had started and out of this new sentiment, they formed the Uganda People’s Party (UPP) with only Milton Obote of UNC and Oda of DP staying out.

In taking this step, the legislators were greatly aided by Buganda’s obscurantism as well as by the fact that all the leaders of the traditional parties with the exception of DP had been exiled by the British government, an action which rendered their parties moribund. However, UPP’s anti-Buganda’s stance denied it a foothold in the central region where it mattered a lot to have support and due to the efforts of Barbara Saben who was a British member of legco and one of Uganda’s greatest ladies UPP joined with Obote to form UPC with Obote as leader.

At the time of UPC’s birth in April 1960 members of the Asian community were still smarting from the effects of the trade boycott of 1959 and were undecided about their future in the country. Some young Asians who included Gurdial Singh, Waheed Karim, Anil Clark, Shaffique Arain in well-attended meetings which were held in Kampala and Jinja managed to convince their compatriots to identify themselves with the African cause. The Asians decided to throw in their lot and UPC became the beneficiary of their support and financial muscle.

With the Asian problem out of the way, only the Buganda issue remained to be resolved. Obote, the shrewd politician who had been totally opposed to Buganda’s demands, suddenly changed his mind at the London constitutional conference which was held in June 1961 and supported Buganda’s federal status in exchange for Mengo’s agreement to deliver all the 21 Buganda parliamentary seats to UPC due in April 1962.

As expected, UPC won the elections with 56 seats to DP’s 24 but the relationship between UPC and Kabaka Yekka (KY) became contentious soon after independence with KY members claiming that they were being sidelined by the principal party.

Within UPC itself, things were not all that comfortable. The intrigues within the party started even before it formed the first government in April 1962.

Under the constitutional arrangements in force then nine special members of parliament were to be elected by the parliamentary group and Kakonge as secretary general of the party expected to make it to the house through this door but as things turned out he was rigged out whereupon he exiled himself to Tanzania.

Many saw the hand of Grace Ibingira behind Kakonge’s experience. Within three months of independence, UPC found itself preoccupied with problems arising from its alliance with KY. but early in 1963, the party was also beset by the problems caused by its youth wingers who were operating from the party headquarters and had become a law unto themselves.

The youth wingers seemed to be aligned to communists and at one time the secretary for youth in the party, Mr. Opio Nasau, who belonged to a different group claime d that there were ideological schools in Kampala which were trying to capture the youth and workers. The youth problem escalated into the Ibingira-Kakonge factions which split the party down the middle. Initially, Obote and Ibingira appeared to be in the same camp to the extent that Ibingira publicly supported Obote’s call for the establishment of a one-party system.

Kakonge, on his part, was not hiding his enthusiasm for communism, a thing which alarmed many of his colleagues and put his tenure as secretary general of the party under threat. It came as no surprise when Ibingira replaced Kakonge as secretary general in a raucous general meeting which was held in Gulu in May 1965.

In the meantime, the party was making a determined effort to establish itself in the central region and at the regional annual general meeting in August, 1965, Godfrey Binaisa the regional chairman declared openly that the party was ready to capture the government at Mengo.

At the same conference, Ibingira called on members to stop what he called “internal personalism in the party” but when Obote stood up to speak, he said he did not want to discuss what Ibingira said. This indicated that all was not well in the party. By the end of 1965 the country was awash with rumours of a coup until an mP, Daudi Ochieng, dropped a bombshell when he claimed that senior members of government together with a high ranking army officer, Idi Amin, were planning a military coup and accused them of being involved in smuggling of gold from the Congo.

On February 14, 1966 Obote denied Ochieng’s allegations and later on April 17, 1966 he himself announced the setting up of a judicial commission of inquiry to look into the allegations. He also announced that Amin would be dealt with according to the provisions of the Army Act.

With the country already in a state of suspense it came as no surprise when Obote announced, “In the interest of national stability and public security and tranquility, I have today the 22nd day of February, 1966, taken over all powers of Uganda. I shall henceforth be advised by a council of ministers whose names I shall name later.”

Thus the constitution was abrogated and five UPC ministers were detained, including Ibingira. The events preceding the abrogation indicate very clearly that it was not Buganda or federalism which caused the 1966 crisis. Neither can it be claimed that religion had a hand in those events.

The crisis was caused by contradictions and struggles for power within the governing party.

In other words, if Obote had not acted as he did, perhaps another group was ready to do so. It was a case of survival of the fittest.

Turn regions into federal states

2006-09-05T00:35:00.000+03:00

I am responding to Mr Mafabi’s opinion in Sunday Monitor, September 3 titled “The LRA Does Not Speak For Northern And Eastern Uganda”. He talks about the perception of the North-South divide in Uganda. I suggest that each region north, east, west and central be made into a state.

I live in the United States and the way it’s divided up in 50 states is very efficient. Each state has its own laws, its own budget and different economy in a way. Florida is famous for its oranges, and tourism. California is famous for its wine. Some states in the mid west were famous for their car industry although that is changing now due to globalisation. Foreign car companies have set up shops in some other states, but it still creates jobs for people in these other states as foreign cars are being assembled in these states, which in turn contribute to the overall American economy.

In the mid west again some states are famous for their corn, wheat, potatoes etc..., and so it goes on. Since the majority of Ugandans are engaged in farming in one way or another, different regions or states could concentrate on growing different crops based on their soils and climate.

Just this past week I read about the growth of sun flowers being affected in the north. The west has beef, milk, matoke, and now oil recently found in Bunyoro. The central grows crops too, and it’s also the major financial centre since the capital city Kampala is located there. The east again could concentrate on growing crops that do well in the soils and climate there.

If each region became a state concentrating on growing different crops, and also engaging in other specialised economic ventures, it would bring some unity and regional balance in Uganda because all regions will be contributing to Uganda’s economic development.

I believe that if people were able to attain a decent living and feed themselves and their families, all the bickering between the north and south, or any underlying resentment between tribes or ethnic groups in Uganda would be minimal.

The central government would act like the federal government here in the United States. It would provide services that all the regions need like security such as the military and intelligence services, ministries such as those of education, foreign affairs, public works and transportation, health, agriculture etc which already exist.

Regina Lule
United States

Does Federo require 2 days of prayers, eh?

2006-07-24T14:02:00.000+03:00

Opinions July 24, 2006

Two days of national prayers show the absurdity of African thinking
Matsiko wa Mucoori

It started as a joke, then progressed into a circus and now it has matured into a laughable reality. When honourable members of a national Parliament, who have attained formal education, resort to fatalism to determine the country’s destiny, you know danger is lurking.
When Ruhama County MP and First Lady Ms Janet Museveni made her maiden contribution in Parliament by declaring that she had examined Uganda’s problems with microscopic exactness and discovered that the cure lies in “two days of national prayers, I laughed to breaking point. I was resting in the belief that no person of modern and scientific learning would lend any slightest attention to such.

That evening I and my pals at our local drinking joint, mentioned Janet’s motion in the House. We all burst into explosive laughter and declined to comment on it because we believed it was an obvious joke.

Shock came the following day upon hearing that the MPs had overwhelmingly endorsed that “two days of national prayer” was a critical and logical solution to Uganda’s prevailing problems. By endorsing the motion, the MPs confirmed their firm belief that Janet had discovered such a great cure, which had eluded them for all these years.

So Uganda’s problems; rising poverty, electricity crisis and the dropping of Lake Victoria’s water level, robbers, killers, defilers, drought, corrupt government officials who swindle money meant to buy drugs for the sick, the poor roads, rising HIV infection, will be best addressed by two days of praying!

Did Janet consult God and so did He tell her that He is not satisfied with the regular Friday, Saturday and Sunday prayers Christians and Muslims hold every week? Could it be the reason why God had been reluctant to help Uganda?

This just shows the inside of the brain of a typical Black African. Africans are not guided by scientific thinking. They survive on belief in a supernatural being because they don’t believe that solutions to their problems are within their means or knowledge. That’s why Africa will remain the most backward continent for centuries. We are so stuck in fatalism that we firmly (but falsely) believe we cannot determine our destiny by ourselves. There must be a divine intervention.

That’s why from Cairo in the north, down to Cape Town in the south, no single Black African has made a discovery of world standard.

When HIV/Aids cases were first detected in Uganda in 1980s, most people first called it a curse from God. Others said it was witchcraft. They had resigned to fate until a non-Black African discovered that actually Aids was caused by a virus called HIV.

This warped Black African thinking is what has ruined and continues to ruin Africa and its populace. Otherwise how would a progressive brain in this 21st century suggest that a country’s material problems are curable by mere prayers? That is why in Africa, we can still have a vice president who engages in live sex with an HIV infected woman and after he has enjoyed his fill, he runs to bathe with soap thinking he will not catch the virus.

When other countries were busy engaged in advance tactical and strategic planning on how to win the World Cup in Germany, Togolese were busy soliciting services of a witchdoctor to help them win the world trophy. Though the witchdoctor was denied a visa to travel.

Recently in Niger, the world’s poorest country whose 60 per cent of the population survives on less than one dollar a day, the President Mamadou Tandja, joined national prayers, like Janet’s, to pray for the seasonal rains to come. All people who went to school know what causes rain and definitely prayers are not among the factors. So if Africa is blessed with such leaders, who seek solutions to their countries’ problems from the divine world, not their brains, how will this continent and its people develop?

Resorting to prayers is an indelible admission of desperation. People go for prayers when they have lost all hope of finding any pragmatic redress to their plight. In Uganda, the problems we have are not spiritual and therefore their solutions do not lie in the prayers. We have government officials who have swindled public money. I would have expected Janet to call for tougher penalties to such fraudsters. She would call for their arrest and prosecution and probably say that upon conviction such criminals should be retired without benefits or should be forced to pay back the stolen money. Do such people need prayers or jail?

If we were to engage in marathon prayers to fight crime, wouldn’t we wake up one day to find the country besieged by criminals? But perhaps Janet and her fellow MPs can help me understand this: How will prayers for instance help raise the water level of Lake Victoria and solve our power crisis? How will prayers solve our poverty? How will they repair our roads? How will the prayers solve cattle rustling in Karamoja? This thinking is just embedded in the Black African mind. Africans always want to blame someone for their dilemma and they will find colonialism their easy target even when what colonialists left behind has been wasted or destroyed by the African pseudo-liberators/revolutionaries.

You will attend a conference presided over by professors and other intellectuals purportedly to tackle Africa’s problems. But speaker after speaker, will be blaming colonialists for Africa’s backwardness. Most present day developed nations were also one time colonised. America, the world’s super power today, was colonised by the British until 1783.

So was Japan, Korea, China, Russia, India etc. But how come they have developed and Africa has not? If colonialism was the cause, how come Ethiopia and Liberia which were never colonised are not Africa’s super powers or the world’s developed economies?

The logical question is: For how long shall we lament about colonialism? The colonialists had no obligation to develop Africa. It’s like blaming the Pope for not promoting Islam. If Africans had colonised Europe, they would have done the same.

The author is a journalist
pmatsiko@monitor.co.ug
0772-431939

Kony wants federo

2006-07-23T15:01:00.000+03:00

By Henry Mukasa

THE Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has demanded federalism and self determination for the north and east as a solution to political marginalisation. The rebel group, at the ongoing talks in Juba, Southern Sudan, came short to calling for secession.

The LRA yesterday demanded in its position paper on “Participation in National Politics and Institutions; Economic and Social Development of Northern and Eastern Uganda” that the Uganda Constitution be amended to provide for federal states. “Since we are ‘primitive’, ‘backward’ and ‘uncivilised’, and nobody within the present political dispensation wants to civilise us, we opt for self determination so that we are free to civilise ourselves and develop our own institutions within our capabilities in partnership with any nations of the world,” the LRA stated.

Led by Joseph Kony, the LRA which has been fighting to establish a government run on the basis of the Biblical commandments seems to have abandoned the spiritual path and is making real political demands. Kony claims to operate on the directives of the ‘Holy Spirit’. Last year, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Kony and four of his commanders for crimes against humanity. This is the second statement the LRA is issuing attacking the Government since the talks opened on July 5.

However, the Government delegation has said it will not be diverted from the talks by unfounded allegations. “Since the Government seems to be so unapologetic about its bad politics of marginalisation of the north and the east, LRA’s demand in respect of participation in our national politics and institutions is an overhaul of the Constitution to provide for, among others, federalism,” the rebel group stated in its paper.

Every federal state, they said, may cultivate its best energies and synergies for its own development. They argued that the states would exploit resources within their boundaries for the good of its people first, and only contribute to the central government as a secondary beneficiary. They said donors shall deal directly with the federal states “to avoid dissipation of funds by corrupt central government officials covered by State immunity”.

The rebels also demanded the re-introduction of presidential term limits lifted by Parliament during the amendment of the Constitution last year. They said they wanted a political dispensation that guarantees the unity and stability of the country through fair sharing of the national cake.

“The north and the east should not be politically persecuted and marginalised for any perceived wrong committed by any past regime. We demand a proportionate power sharing arrangement that takes care of regional and population balance of the country,” they said. Each delegation is supposed to present a stand on participation in national politics and tackle matters to do with political marginalisation, imbalance in participation in national institutions, inequitable and unbalanced economic development and disparity in the provision of social infrastructure. Sources say that while presenting the LRA paper at a closed meeting at Juba Raha Hotel, Obonyo Olweny, the spokesman for the LRA team, told chief mediator Dr. Riek Machar, the Southern Sudan Vice President, that his team was concerned that the Government team seemed not to have “mandate to negotiate with us but to demand terms of surrender”. He reportedly added, “Nevertheless we wish to reaffirm our firm commitment and that of our principals, to quick, expeditious but fair and just resolutions of the causes of the conflict.”

The LRA maintained its claims that Nilotics were being persecuted, adding that even with his military dictatorship, Idi Amin never pursued such a deliberate policy to keep the country divided “as it is today in Uganda”. “It is regrettable that, upon assumption of state power, the NRM embarked on a deliberate policy to divide the country, firstly between the Bantu and the Nilotics; and secondly to ethnic group and lineage kinship and marriage relationships,” the LRA said. The rebels said a cursory look at appointments in all government statutory authorities and commissions, parastatals and departments pointed to favouritism. The LRA also bashed the Government for what they called “rampant corruption and abuse of office” that “has no comparison in the history of post-Independence Uganda.” They pointed a finger at the agreement for the exploration and production of the recently discovered oil deposit on the shores of Lake Albert as one that “smacks of the usual outrage Ugandans are now accustomed to”.

“Can you countenance the fact that the nation shall only end up getting less than 26% of this natural resource? Considering that nearly all the people involved in the negotiation of the deal are from one region of the country, it is irresistible to hazard the suggestion of a possibility of foul play somewhere,” they stated. “If the world does not intervene and come to our aid, catastrophe looms over the north and the east of the country. The Government should not be allowed to hide behind the veil of insecurity,” the rebels said, inviting the UN and other humanitarian agencies to investigate “all the allegations of persecution of genocidal proportions.”

Meanwhile the Government delegation, which is led by Internal Affairs Minister Dr. Ruhakana Rugunda, has decided it will not be responding to LRA statements in the media any more, because they are diversionary. Capt. Paddy Ankunda, the delegation’s spokesman, said this will not change unless it is found that a response is absolutely necessary and in the spirit of the talks.

“These statements from their face value seem to be meant to make us lose focus from tackling more meaningful issues that pertain to the success of the peace talks. We will not engage in this ping pong,” Ankunda said. He advised the LRA team to grab the chance to negotiate for a soft landing. He said the LRA attacks and sentimental allegations with no requests for reconciliation were not in the spirit of peace talks. Ankunda noted that the LRA delegation was attempting to articulate some semblance of a political agenda for LRA and give it a political face.

“One wonders why nothing has so far been mention about Kony’s agenda of wanting to rule Uganda using the ten commandments,” he observed He was, however, optimistic that the talks would succeed.

“There is more hope today than ever before that peace for northern Uganda and Southern Sudan is just around the corner,” he said. Ends

Published on: Saturday, 22nd July, 2006

Govt should adopt federo system

2006-07-19T18:44:00.002+03:00

Ugandans need to identify the root cause of our country's problems and do something about it.

The unitary system has failed Ugandans and the majority of the problems are caused by lack of strong regional governments.

As long as the power is in the hands of a chosen few in Kampala, then corruption, security, poverty, ethnic tensions, wars will never go away. They're a result of the unitary system.

We need to recognise the necessity to abandon the current unitary model of governance. We should be debating federo and how to implement it. All past and present experiments with other governance structures have not been able to deal successfully and satisfactorily with the problems of a complex multi-ethnic society.

Writing the constitution when Museveni was President and amending it while he was still President, giving him more bisanja and enabling him to rule for life, clearly points to what's wrong with the current system. With multi parties, one party or no parties, Uganda is bound to remain the same, a country full of power struggles, corruption and poverty.

It's time to be candid, face the reality, and find a lasting solution which is an all-inclusive federo system of governance for Uganda.

FN Lugemwa
Kampala

Katikkiro of Bunyoro supports regional tier

2006-07-14T13:19:00.000+03:00

News July 14, 2006

Ausi Balyesiima
Hoima

THE Katikkiro of Bunyoro Kitara Kingdom, Mr Erisa Byenkya Kagoro, has said political leaders who are against the regional tier system of governance are enemies of Bunyoro. “Bunyoro has unique problems compared to other regions in the country and a regional government is the only voice to help Bunyoro if development is to be attained,” he said.

Byenkya was addressing residents at Masindi Boma Grounds during celebrations to congratulate Ms Kabakumba Matsiko upon winning Bunjeje County parliamentary polls in February.

The celebrations were presided over by the Second Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Henry Kajura.Kajura, who is also the Minister of Public Service, appealed to leaders in the area to mobilise the population into working hard to fight poverty.

Kabakumba thanked the people for their prayers which led to her appointment as the government chief whip. She promised to work with every body to develop the country.

Buganda has nothing to lose but her chains

2006-07-09T21:25:00.000+03:00

JOHN KEN LUKYAMUZI

Peter Mulira is the person I least expected to be uncertain about the system of government he cherishes. In his June 27 column, Mulira wrote, “Only the sharing of tax revenue recommended is not covered in the regional tier proposals. Mengo should open up to alternative views before committing the kingdom to an unnecessary constitutional crisis from which Buganda may never recover this time round.” Mulira’s remarks saddened me. Buganda is not dying to become a federal entity if what is thrown to it is merely decorated as federo. We are patient, as has always been the case. Above all, the federalism we are craving is for all the people of Uganda.

Uganda, which became independent in 1962, is a country of many nations, with a rich mosaic of cultures and traditions. That is why Winston Churchill referred to it as the Pearl of Africa.

The quest for federalism is not new. We voluntarily came together in our respective diversities to form one nation on the basis of the principle of unity in diversity. We lived happily at one time as a quasi-federal entity between 1962 and 1966 and our economy even registered an extraordinary boom. Since the collapse of the federal union among the regions, Uganda has never recovered from the confusion and economic decay.

Over 35% of the population today lives below the poverty line. Why is there endless war in northern Uganda? Why is corruption endemic and why are people so poor? There is no reliable formula to direct the distribution of the national cake. One has to be powerful to influence wealth distribution.

The federal system can reduce these economic disparities. Federalism is a system of government where executive powers, including sovereignty and independence, are constitutionally shared between the centre and the regions. It symbolises the right to live and act freely.

The regional tier should be referred to as LC6 because it is an extension of what LC5 does. The federal arrangement need not cover all the regions at its inception; it can begin with a few states as others get ready. In 1989, the decentralisation exercise started with 13 districts but as I write all the districts of Uganda are part of the decentralisation order. Why doesn’t the Government want the regions to collect taxes as well as plan for their survival? I smell a rat.

In the regional tier arrangement, everything related to finance is the responsibility of the centre. Worse still, the districts run parallel economic activities with the regions. In a federal order, the district will be under the region and the two power centres have a common goal and depend on each other in the collection and levy of taxes. It is meaningless to deprive the region of tax-collection while you let the district carry out the same activity.

A federal order would remove the need for a large Parliament and Executive. Service delivery is not dependent on the size of the Cabinet or Parliament in a federation. Tax collection and planning in a federation is a prerequisite for it enables the regions to build capacity as well as groom leaders, which would not happen in the regional tier. Why does Mulira want Mengo to accept any alternative if what Mengo is pursuing will equitably be shared by all the regions? Is Mulira looking for a ministerial job? Why should Buganda’s demand for federalism culminate in a constitutional crisis? That is defeatism. Buganda and other federo agitators should stick to what they want. They have nothing to lose but their chains.

The writer was the chairman of the federal studies caucus in the 7th Parliament

Published on: Saturday, 8th July, 2006

Nakasongola snubs federo

2006-05-29T10:29:00.000+03:00

Sunday, 28th May, 2006

By Frederick Kiwanuka

NAKASONGOLA will not back the Mengo establishment in its pursuit of the federo system of governance, the new district chairman, James Wandera, has said. He said on Wednesday that Nakasongola preferred the government-proposed regional tier because it is more practical than federo. “Mengo wants a federal system of governance where the Kabaka has political powers. This cannot be possible in the present Uganda,” he said on Tuesday.

He dismissed allegations that the Baruuli want to secede from Buganda because of their cultural ties with Bunyoro. “We are still part of Buganda but we want the Mengo establishment to know that the Baruuli have their own cultural values that differ from those of Baganda,” he said.

He said Uganda is a small country that should remain unified so as to develop faster. “It does not make sense to fragment the country into smaller units,” he said.

Nakasongola was annexed from Bunyoro Kingdom following the 1900 Buganda agreement.

Ends

African Dictator's prayer

2006-05-22T18:16:00.000+03:00

Our Father who art in the West,
Hallowed be thy name!
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done in Africa, as it is in the world over.
Give us this day our daily loan and grant.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive thoseof our cronnies and relatives.
In turn, we shall give away our land for free
to all needy tycoons, wherever and whomever be they.
And lead us not into democracy,
but deliver us from backward peasants asking for federalism:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory,
forever and ever.
Amen.

Mengo sets conditions for fresh federal talks

2006-05-11T00:02:00.000+03:00

News May 11, 2006
Mengo sets conditions for fresh federal talks
ROBERT MWANJE
BULANGE

Mengo has set conditions to guide fresh federo talks expected to resume this year. The Katikkiro of Buganda, Mr Daniel Muliika, said the new guidelines would help to avoid back and forth slides from stakeholders.

Among the conditions is the need to bring on board all federo cherishing communities.

"The new negotiations must not isolate Buganda as the only federo demanding kingdom," Muliika said at Mengo on Monday.

"This is intended to create a negative impression against the kingdom. We must go as a team with other kingdoms because they also have similar problems and I think this will even ease the President's work in settling the kingdoms' grievances at once."

The development comes on the heels of a meeting Buganda MPs held with Mengo officials urging them to hold transparent talks with the central government and involve all stakeholders.

The MPs advised the kingdom to involve legislators and members of the parliamentary legal committee for clear proceedings.

The kingdom said a new Mengo federo negotiating team would be announced. Muliika also reiterated that during the re-negotiation, they would not allow any provision for an elected katikkiro.

Having an elected katikkiro has been a particularly thorny issue among the Baganda, which they have interpreted as demeaning the kingdom.

Said Muliika: "We shall then write the kingdom's constitution, which must be consented on by the Lukiiko (parliament) before signing any agreement."

In February, the Lukiiko through a unanimous vote, roundly rejected government's proposed regional tier just months after Parliament had passed the proposal.

Mengo warns govt against imposing tier

2006-05-07T23:16:00.000+03:00

News May 8, 2006

Mengo warns govt against imposing tier
ROBERT MWANJE
MENGO

Buganda Katikkiro Daniel Muliika has cautioned the government against imposing the regional tier system on the people of Uganda.

"The major reason why Uganda experienced a lot of anarchy before 1986 was that leaders were forcing unwanted types of governance on people," Muliika said on May 2 at Mengo."The government should avoid such mistakes."

The remarks come after the government last year negotiated with Mengo for a regional tier system of governance instead of the much sought after federo.

The new arrangement dictated that the Katikkiro of Buganda would be elected under adult suffrage contrary to Mengo's tradition.

Of all the inadequacies of the tier system, electing a Katikkiro was not well received among the Baganda. Little wonder that in February Mengo passed a unanimous resolution rejecting the tier just months after Parliament had passed the proposal.

The stormy Buganda Lukiiko (parliament) session reverted to the earlier demand for federo. Muliika said even the Odoki report, conducted under the supervision of the central government, recommended federo for Buganda and a return of its property.

He said the kingdom would ask Queen Elizabeth II during her Commonwealth Summit visit to list Buganda's property as per the 1900 agreement.

Muliika, MPs to discuss federo

2006-04-30T21:45:00.000+03:00

News May 01, 2006

Muliika, MPs to discuss federo
ROBERT MWANJE
BULANGE

BUGANDA kingdom has asked the newly elected members of Parliament from Buganda region to draw an alternative plan on how to achieve a genuine federal system of governance.

The Katikkiro of Buganda, Mr Daniel Muliika, on Thursday said kingdom officials would meet central region MPs on May 3 and later meet LC5, LC3 and municipality chairpersons from the central region to discuss the way forward on federo.The head of Bataka (elders) council, Mr Grace Ssemakula Ndugwa, said Mengo’s discussion with legislators would portray how transparent Buganda’s demands are to the entire country.

“We don’t need to hide our demands because they benefit everybody, if federalism is granted, every region will benefit,” Ndugwa said. Buganda Lukiiko has set guidelines for fresh federo negotiations expected to resume any time.

Muliika said Mengo would only resume talks with the government if other federal cherishing kingdoms are brought on board. He said a new federo negotiating team would be announced, given guidelines to follow and no adjustments would be made on the Katikkiro’s appointment.

“The new federo negotiations must not isolate Buganda as the only federo demanding kingdom. We must go as a team with other kingdoms because they also have similar problems,” Muliika told Mengo ministers on Tuesday.

Buganda Lukiiko, the highest body of the kingdom, in February rejected the government’s regional tier by a unanimous vote just months after Parliament passed the proposal.

The Lukiiko session demanded a federal system of governance. Former Katikkiro Joseph Ssemwogerere led the Mengo negotiation team, which sealed the regional tier deal. Mengo wants the return of 9000 milo land and recognition of Kampala as part of the Kingdom.

Form of Federal Model for East Africa

2006-04-13T22:35:00.000+03:00

Referendum a must to decide on EA federation

During the seventh summit of the East Africa Community (EAC), the heads of State of Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya said that political federation was the most urgent business for East Africa. A team has already been appointed to oversee the process of transforming EAC into one country.

Obviously, there are several prospects of regional integration. An integrated EA will have economies of scale and bigger markets. A united EA will also act as a counterweight to the external forces of globalization.

Though most East Africans seem to support the integration process, there are questions that have to be addressed now. First, what form of federal model does EAC intend to achieve? Is it the traditional form of federation as found in the US, Germany, Nigeria, Ethiopia, former USSR, former Yugoslavia or a contemporary form of confederation as the European Union?

Second, an East African political federation will need a good constitution to govern such a vast and diversified country. The constitution will have to state clearly the principles of separation of powers, checks and balances and devolution of powers to the people at the grassroots. East Africans will not accept a 'centralized' form of governance.

Third, since the political union should be in place by 2011, when will the constitution-making process for the proposed federation begin? From experience, the law review process has been complex in Kenya and Uganda. What has been put in place to ensure that a 'half-baked' constitution of EA federation is not imposed on the people?

Fourth, the EA integration process should not be left to the political and business class alone. It must be people-driven and inclusive. Although political leadership is quite imperative to the process, politicians' interests might not necessarily be in conformity with the citizens' interests.

Fifth, the debate on the EA integration process especially on political federation must be open as much as possible. The people must have the opportunity to express their views without intimidation or manipulation. Further, each Partner State must begin educating rather than 'indoctrinating' its citizens about the benefits of integration.

Seventh, the EAC should look beyond the present membership. Already Rwanda and Burundi has applied to join. Will a federation (US model) or a confederation (EU model) be more accommodating to new members? Finally, East Africans must be given a chance to approve or disapprove the formation of an East African State through a referendum.

Paul Odhiambo, Nairobi

A tip on the katikkiro issue

2006-04-08T21:39:00.000+03:00

I hope my Baganda brothers and sisters will not object too much if I, a Munyoro from Hoima, may comment on a subject that has exercised their brains and patience for some time. Their brand new Katikkiro Daniel Muliika (a name by the way also given in Bunyoro) spares no effort to demand that the kabaka retains the sole responsibility to name his "kamala byonna".

And I fully agree with the man. The katikkiro's is a cultural office with sensitive responsibilities to the kingdom and the kabaka. It would be foolhardy to expect the Kabaka to have a politician elected by people who have no cultural attachment, let alone loyalty to the kingdom, to be his "kabaka outside the palace".

The government on the other hand says that it is committed to the advancement of democracy even at grassroots level and insists that the head of the regional tier (which of course Buganda has now repudiated) must be an elected man or woman.

This official would be responsible for money to be passed to the regions for service delivery. Those who are schooled in these matters may recall the slogan "no taxation without representation" used by pro-democracy campaigners of long ago against a prime minister appointed by the sovereign that resulted in the Westminster type of government.

One of the problems with the stand-off on this issue is that both sides are attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole. The katikkiro is cultural and cultural leaders are debarred from open involvement in politics. An election by universal suffrage is by definition involvement in open and even partisan politics - quod erat demonstrandum.

But there need not be a stand-off. I have suggested in these pages before that the kabaka should be free to appoint his katikkiro if he is so inclined. No precedents (it has happened before) should constrict him - after all in Buganda he can make and unmake things. The regional tier if re-embraced by Buganda should have its elected leader and for goodness sake that leader should not bear the title katikkiro. That way the cultural functions of Dan Muliika would be segregated from those of the tier chairman. Or am I being optimistic?

H.G.K. Nyakoojo, Hoima, and Buziga.

Rejecting regional tier will be very costly for Buganda

2006-04-04T17:14:00.000+03:00

Tuesday, 4th April, 2006

Peter Mulira

A learned friend With a historical perspective Peter Mulira

In his recent book titled Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or to Succeed Jared Diamond lists five reasons why some societies have failed and others succeeded.

He names among this list a society’s failure to anticipate problems. By this, Diamond means that sometimes when people are faced with unfamiliar situations they fall back on drawing analogies with old familiar situations which is a good way to proceed if the new and the old situations are truly analogies, but it can be dangerous if they are superficially similar.

To illustrate his point, Diamond draws on the experience of the Vikings from Britain and Norway who immigrated to Iceland around the year AD 870 and were fooled by the tree species which were familiar to them in their countries and as such proceeded to clear the forests to create pastures for their livestock as they would do at home. Unknown to the Vikings, Iceland’s soils arose from light ash blown from volcanic explosions unlike the clay type in Britain and Norway and once exposed after the forests were cleared, the wind blew them away eroding the top soil. Iceland became uninhabitable! Like the story of Iceland, some mistakes have been made in the past in our case. Thus in 1957, the Buganda kingdom parliament, the Lukiiko, rejected political parties as well as the first direct elections to the Legco, then our parliament, which were held in 1958. This resulted in the kingdom losing its premier position in national affairs and gave birth to the Buganda-versus-the-rest axis.

By rejecting Ben Kiwanuka and his Democratic Party in 1962, Buganda again forfeited its opportunity to provide our first national leader after independence and perhaps lost that position if not forever, at least for a very long time to come. Many examples can be given of the missteps taken in the recent past but the latest one is the decision to reject the regional tier government. This decision will determine whether other compliant regions will outstrip Buganda in development as a result of the benefits accruing from self-government which ironically the kingdom has fought for for years. The proposed regional tier involves a number of elements which form the composite namely the region, the tier in the sense of the level at which sharing is done, a government, financial allocations, local power to legislate and the freedom to indulge a region’s cultural uniqueness. By rejecting the regional tier one is rejecting all these good things which, according to modern scholarship, are the engines for development. The reason given for the rejection that a regional tier is a poor replacement for federo is lame and unimaginative.

A regional tier is just a descriptive term of a level of government which can easily be replaced by such words as state, provincial or regional. But what is in a name? Between 1900 and 1937 the Buganda government was known as the “Lukiiko”. In 1937 it was named “His Highness the Kabaka’s Government” before becoming “Buganda Government” in the 1962 constitution. It is therefore sheer madness to miss out on having a government at Mengo simply because we do not like the description of it. But there is more to this. In a document entitled “Buganda’s position on the draft constitution: The views of the Buganda Lukiiko submitted to the Constitutional Review Commission as comments on the draft constitution in 1994, the Lukiiko stated: “Buganda is not bothered whether the constitution will label it a state, a province or a district. Buganda, for as long as it is recognised as one unit, call l it RC V, if you may, will go by whatever official administrative title adopted in the constitution.” If the term full federo which is preferred to regional tier by some people means the same arrangement as we had in 1962 then the claim is not correct at all for at page 72 of Buganda’s proposals to the Ssempebwa Constitutional Review Commission the return to the 1962 constitution was discounted ".......because every federal system has to be adjusted to meet the demands of the times”. Again at page 76 it is quite clear that the Lukiiko sanctioned the idea of regional government. So where are these new demands we hear about coming from?

Federalism, as opposed to unitarism in which power is centralised, provides for diffusion of state power among three layers or tiers of government namely national, regional or state and local while ensuring local autonomy for the regions to govern themselves through their different cultural and geographical characteristics. It is an abstract concept and should not be confused with the idea of autonomy which is just one of the elements of the federalism. The present constitution is federalist in nature, something the ultra-conservatives in Buganda fail to understand.

The manner in which a Katikkiro will be elected is a function of the idea of autonomy in that the national constitution has nothing to do with it. But in the modern world we live in today even this autonomy must be guided by democratic principles. We should take a leaf from the British practice where the Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen through the invitation of the leader of the majority party in parliament to form a government. This power of the Queen to appoint her prime minister is both symbolic and real in the sense that she normally respects the people’s will but does not have to.

Indeed in 1923 the king went over the head of the Conservative Party leader, Lord Curzon, and invited Mr. Stanley Baldwin to form the government. In the case of the Conservative Party the leader of the party used to evolve from consultations within the committee of 22 made up of the party bigwigs who would recommend a name to the Queen but the party has since 1964 elected its leader like other parties at its annual conferences.

A Katikkiro therefore does not have to be directly elected in order to satisfy the principles of democracy so long as he has gone through an election process of some sort. To resolve the impasse in Buganda we could have the majority party in the Lukiiko after consultations with the Kabaka’s six nominees in the Lukiiko nominating three names as candidates for the office.

Following the procedure in the 1962 constitution the Lukiiko will then elect a Katikkiro-designate who will then be appointed Katikkiro by the Kabaka by handing him the Ddamula. This will put democracy and tradition in a happy embrace. With the Lukiiko flipfloping on the issue of federo one wonders whether it is not exposing Buganda like the Vikings of Iceland.

The Kabaka should appoint a specialised committee, not from Mengo, like the Hancock committee to study the situation and make a recommendation to the Mengo government.

The Mulwanyammuli Agreement

2006-03-19T22:46:00.000+03:00

A BRIEF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WHAT MENGO TOOK TO SSEMPEBWA COMMISSION AND THE RESULTS OF

THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

Buganda took FIVE main points to the Ssempebwa Commission, which are:

1. Buganda wanted a Federal system of Government for the whole of Uganda or for those regions who want it;

2. Kampala District which has Bugandas most important cultural sites should be in Buganda;

3. 9000 Square Miles;

4. The 1998 Land Act (i.e. annual rent of Shs.,1,000/=; and

5. Immunities and Privileges of Traditional Leaders.

I am attaching a photocopy of pages 4 and 5 of our Proposals to the Ssempebwa Commission, which outlines the above Buganda main demands in the Constitutional change.

Page 4 and 5 of our Proposals to the Ssempebwa Commission

(a) The Federal System of Government and the process of Decentralization;

(b) Kampala District as part of Buganda;

(c) The Restitution of the 9000 square miles that were illegally taken away from the Kingdom of Buganda;

(d) The Land Tenure System and the excesses of the Land Act 1998;

(e) Immunities and privileges of Traditional Leaders;

The Format of this Report:

The Kingdom of Buganda has decided to present this Report in simple straightforward language, so that ordinary Ugandans, who constitute the

majority of our population, can understand the resentation made on their behalf.

The Report seeks to answer most of the commonly asked questions about the Federal System of Government and its relation to and compatibility with the Decentralization, the questions have arisen from interviews

conducted, and reports received by the Buganda Constitutional Review Commission. They address the various misconceptions about federalism and decentralization held in some circles, as well as their effects and impact on the attainment of durable peace, more accelerated economic development, more meaningful social progress and the realisation of a Constitutional Buganda.

The Lay out of the Report:

The Report which was presented to the Ssempebwa Commission is divided into four major parts, namely:

(a) Executive summary

(b) The Federal System of Government and Decentralisation

(d) Summary of recommendations and conclusion to the Report.

RESULTS OF NEGOTIATIONS: (Between Mengo and Central Government)

A. We achieved the following main components of a federal system of government:

1. There will be a Regional Government at Mengo, headed by the Kabaka, with a directly elected indigenous Katikkiro, Ministers, civil servants, etc. all paid from funds officially allocated for the is function. The Kabaka will hand Ddamula to the Katikkiro, and all Ministers have okweyanza ewa Kabaka. (The Clan Leaders will vet the names of Katikkiro candidature. This will be in ordinary legislation).

2. There will be a Regional Legislative Assembly, opened addressed and closed by the Kabaka. The Assembly will have powers to make laws on the functions devolved to Mengo, which laws would be applicable and binding to the whole of Buganda. In addition, according to Articles 178 (8) of the Constitutional (Amendment) Bill, the regional assembly (Lukiiko), shall be the highest political authority within its region and shall have political, legislative, administrative and cultural functions in the region. Under this authority, the Assembly will be able to make its own Constitution, provided it does not conflict with the Uganda Constitution. The size of the Lukiiko is to be mutually agreed upon later, and will be a subject of separate ordinary legislation.

N.B. Note that now we shall once again, have a Kabaka of Buganda instead of Kabaka of Baganda; the region Buganda will be back on the official map and Constitution of Uganda.

3. There will be adequate financing for the Mengo Government, which shall be from the following sources:

(a) Conditional grants from the Mengo Government, which will be money initially budgeted by Mengo; approved and provided by the Central Government from the Consolidated Fund to cater for all the functions constitutionally devolved on Mengo under paragraph 9 of the Fifth Schedule to the Bill;

(b) Unconditional grants for Mengo to use and allocate as it deems fit. The formula for these to be worked out as recommended by the Ssempebwa Commission, by experts, who according to our negotiations and agreements, must include Mengo representatives; (our preference was that the formula be incorporated in the Constitution).

(c) Indirect taxation: cess and surcharge, subject to consultation with the Central Government (mainly to ensure that Mengo is in accord with Central Governments commitment to Donors, IMF, World Bank, Projected inflation rates, etc);

(d) Borrowings and Loans;

(e) Development projects;

(f) Donations;

(g) Investments.

4. Specified functions are constitutionally devolved to Mengo.

These are laid out in paragraph 9 of the Bill. A major function we wanted but failed to get is overall management of Agriculture; Our role in this important developmental sector is confined to monitoring, coordinating and supervising Agriculture. The functions are:

(a) Secondary education and tertiary institutions except national universities and other national institutions: This means schools like Budo, Kisubi, Namagunga, Gayaza, Kibuli, Nabisunsa, etc., will now be administered from Mengo.

(b) Maintenance of regional roads: Roads which cut across more than one District are the responsibility of Buganda Government.

(c) Regional referral hospitals other than national referral hospitals (e.g. Mulago and Butabika) and national medical institutions. Most big hospitals in Buganda will now be under Buganda Government.

(d) Co-ordination, monitoring and supervision of Agriculture.

(e) Forests: other than national parks.

(f) Culture

(g) Cultural and traditional lands

(h) Promotion of local languages; crafts and antiquities

(i) Water

(j) Sanitation

(k) To levy surcharge or cess subject to the approval of the Central Government. This is indirect taxation.

(l) Functions and services surrendered voluntarily by a District Council or District Councils.

(m) Receiving copies of financial accountability of districts to the central government to enable the regional government monitor, and supervise the implementation of government programmes.

5. The units lower than the regional Government would, in most federal arrangements, report through the regional government. In our case, the Central Government rejected this, as a strategy to persuade the Districts to ratify this legislature first. Districts are to report directly to the Central Government, but giving us copies of those reports. Mengo will be responsible for monitoring and supervising the Districts implementation of Central Government programmes. They will, however, be answerable to Mengo on matters delegated to them by Mengo. We still feel that all Central Government instructions to Districts and Districts reporting to the Central Government should be through the Regional Government.

6. All the above are clearly entrenched in the Constitution, which entrenchment is a major, basic and indispensable aspect of a federal system of governance.

The above constitutes the basics of a federal system of Government. It must be emphasized that just as no two kings or Presidents or even Governments in the world are exactly alike, with exact identical powers, etc, no two federal systems are exactly identical in all aspects. The federal system in the US is different from that of each European country, or of India, etc. they all, however, have the basics listed above.

We insisted on the word federo or federal system being put in the Constitution. The Government rejected this on the same ground they had used to reject putting the word or term Kabaka in the 1995 Constitution. The Government urgued that the system being set up was not for Buganda alone but for any region in Uganda which desired it. That the word federo was a Kiganda word which had acquired some negative connotation in some parts of Uganda. That the same can now be said of the word federal which to many is the same as federo.

They reasoned that instead of forcing everyone to use a word they do not like, which could even make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to pass the federal concept through Parliament and the Districts, we should do what was done in the 1995 Constitution: namely do not use the word Kabaka for all or any Traditional Leader, but allow every Kingdom or area to use whatever title they wanted. That this had worked well without any problems. The Bill allows each region to use any title it wants, including the word Federo. Paragraph 1 of the Fifth Schedule to the Bill provides: A regional government may adopt its own name.

B. Kampala

1. All traditional sites currently in Kampala District will be curved out of Kampala, made into MENGO Municipality, and will become the Headquarters of Mengo Government, which is in Buganda.

2. The remaining part of the currently Kampala District, housing the Central Government Headquarters, is constitutionally stated to be in Buganda, but will be directly administered by the Central Government.

3. This Capital city of Kampala will have permanent boundaries; however any expansion of commercial city will be in budget and to the benefit of Buganda.

C. The 9000 square Miles

1. This is now much less than 9000 Sq. miles because a big bulk of it was in the lost counties: and much of the rest has since been sold or given to individuals as freehold. There is no accurate estimate of what remains but some people estimate it between 3000 and 4000 square miles.

2. The government rejected our request that all the administration of this land reverts to Mengo, saying that this is bound to inconvenience people occupying or dealing with land

3. Instead it was agreed there should be a Buganda Land Board which should consist of all District Land Boards Chairpersons ad equal number of members appointed by the Buganda Government to plan, and co-ordinate land use, allocations, etc. in what remains of 9000 Square miles. Buganda Land Board would also be represented in District Land Boards.

4. Under Paragraph 10 of the Fifth Schedule to the Bill, Mengo shall have powers to coordinate, monitor and plan land use in Buganda.

D. The Land Act 1998

1. The problem here was the provision in the 1998 Land Act which imposed a standard annual rent of U.Shs.1000/= irrespective of size, location or economic activity on the Land.

2. This problem, which as we noted our demands to Professor Ssempebwas Commission, was never a Constitutional matter. However, consequent upon our strong protest, it was solved by an amendment to the 1998 land Act, which scrapped the Uniform Shs. 1000/=, and left the determination of appropriate rent to the District Land Boards and Lands Minister. We are still contesting this and the Occupation Permit of squarters.

E. Immunities and Privileges of Traditional Leaders

1. It was agreed that the privileges of the Kabaka, in addition to those in Articles 246, shall be expanded by allowing Regional Government to financially and otherwise look after the Kabaka, and the parliament was to enact a law which will, in addition cater for the financial welfare of the Kabaka.

2. Parliament was also to enact laws to exempt Traditional Leaders from payment of direct taxes, and also establish their proper place in protocol. This was not strictly, a constitutional matter

F. Other Matters Obtained from the negotiation:

1. We prevailed upon Government to accept ONE Lukiiko.

2. We prevailed upon Government to enact Constitutional provisions ensuring that ALL OUR BAGANDA AND BUGANDA CULTURAL MATTERS WILL BE HANDLED EXCLUSIVELY BY BAGANDA APPOINTED BY THE KABAKA AND CLAN LEADERS.

3. Buganda shall remain with the 1966 boundaries and no part of it can be allowed to secede as as the case under the 1995 Constitution.

4. Under the 1962 Constitution, Katikkiro was elected exclusively by the directly elected members of Lukiiko. To avoid a partisan Katikkiro, it was strongly suggested that we directly elect the Katikkiro. Katikkiro has to be an indigenous resident of Buganda, one whose parents or grand parents was residing in Buganda on 1^st February 1926, and is willing and able to perform all the Buganda cultural rites. We are insisting that one of the grounds for disciplining the Katikkiro should be disobedience or disrespect to the Kabaka.

5. We prevailed upon the government to completely abandon the obnoxious provision relating to removal or disciplining the Kabaka.

6. We further prevailed upon Government to set up a vetting committee for the purposes of vetting the candidate for the post of Katikkiro. This committee would be composed of Abataka. As we all know the Kabaka is the chairman of Abataka (Ssaabataka).

J.G. MULWANYAMMULI SSEMWOGERERE

KATIKKIRO OF BUGANDA

December 15^th, 2005.

Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!

Can an elected Katikkiro co-exist with the Kabaka?

2006-03-19T22:23:00.000+03:00

Can an elected Katikkiro co-exist with the Kabaka?

As Secretary-General of Fedsnet, arguably the leading portal of federalism information for Ugandans, it is incumbent upon me to comment on the controversy regarding the position of the Katikkiro in Buganda.

The debate about whether the Katikkiro should be elected or ppointed by the Kabaka is very pertinent to the federalism debate. In the spirit of genuine federalism, Uganda's regions should decide echanisms for their own internal self-governance guided by universal democratic principles and Human rights, and not in contravention of the hoped for national, federal constitution. At your convenience, please see the Fedsnet model for such a constitution at: http://successisthekey.tripod.com.

I support election of the Katikkiro from among candidates screened nd approved by the Kabaka and the Bataka following an elaborate process. This is the position that we, Fedsnetters, presented to the Ssempebwa Constitutional Review Commission in April 2003. The Bataka, it was reported, insisted on a similar arrangement upon meeting President Museveni in May 2005. Thus it seems that Buganda's current hard-line stance against the election of the Katikkiro was largely precipitated by the government's omission of such a screening process for prospective Katikkiros in the regional tier bill it presented to parliament.

Given the importance of the relationship between the Kabaka as Supreme Constitutional head of Buganda, and the Katikkiro as its administrative head, along with overwhelming desire for cultural integrity by Buganda and other regions, the Bataka, and others, are justified in shunning any bill or law that does not recognize the Kabaka's and cultural guardians' role in vetting candidates for Katikkiro.

This article examines alternative proposals that have been presented on the subject of the election of the Katikkiro. It then proposes an arrangement within Buganda's constitution that ensures that a vetted, elected Executive Katikkiro of Buganda is accountable to the people resident in Buganda, while --paradoxical and conflictual as it may seem -- he/she is keenly aware of the supreme position and authority of the Kabaka in Buganda. In line with this thinking, the article posits an idea that may help guarantee that the Kabaka's office continues to be viewed by all political players as central to Buganda's affairs beyond the cultural sphere, though not in a partisan political sense.

The debate and the Issues

Should the Kabaka nominate the Katikkiro from among elected members of the Lukiiko, or should Buganda residents directly elect the Katikkiro? This is a topic with strong arguments on either side, but the issues of accountability, tradition and cultural integrity are major points of contention.

In democracies, accountability is very much intertwined with the people's vote and their ability to remove errant leaders either directly through subsequent elections, or indirectly through their legislative representatives' votes of 'no confidence'. Now, in a situation where the Kabaka appoints someone Katikkiro, whether from within the Lukiiko, or from without, accountability becomes murky in that cultural authorities, such as the Bataka, or entrenched interests, may through their counsel to a potentially insulated Kabaka, anchor a politically unaccountable [to the people] Katikkiro, thus stunting the growth of democracy and good governance.

In the age of CNN and BBC broadcasts emitting daily images and news of people worldwide rebelling against unaccountable institutions, and with ever increasing access to higher education that nurtures analytical and independent thinking -- the possibility of a perception of unaccountable Katikkiros being shielded by unelectable Kabakas, may, in the long-term, do more to undermine the survival of, and the continued reverence for the monarchy in Buganda than any perceived deficiencies of a constitutional arrangement that allows for election of the Katikkiro, subject to pre-screening of candidates by the Kabaka, the Bataka, and a few technocrats on the monarch's advisory council.

The Parliamentary Approach

An alternative to the direct election of the Katikkiro is provided by parliamentary systems whereby the leader of the party with a majority of seats in parliament automatically becomes Prime Minister. While such an arrangement may work well in other regions of Uganda, in the case of Buganda, such an arrangement is likely to be just as unacceptable because it leaves no room for the Kabaka to choose or vet the Katikkiro in an environment where the composition of the one-chamber elected Lukiiko is likely to be ever changing and uncertain. A variant idea, with the Kabaka nominating a Katikkiro from among elected members of the regional legislature, may be just as contentious, unless the person chosen by the Kabaka happens to be the leader of the majority party in the Lukiiko, with universal legitimacy to all the region's party members. A complication, however, is the probability that the party leader may not necessarily be in tune with the kingdom's cultural power brokers.

On the other hand, it is no longer neither feasible nor desirable, in a democratic society, to shut out parties in the process of choosing the Katikkiro. In past instances where the Lukiiko elected the Katikkiro, the parties were either non-factors, or were sidelined by the Kabaka Yekka movement that dominated the Lukiiko. Parties and their leaders were then widely viewed in Buganda as upstarts that lacked administrative depth, wisdom, and experience possessed by traditional authorities, and were largely suspected of not having the best interests of Buganda's institutions at heart. Incidentally, such sentiments may still be latent.

From a representative government perspective, it is possible that a candidate elected by, nominated, or emerging from a Lukiiko -- dominated by men and conservative cultural guardians -- may not be wholly sensitive to concerns and grievances of important groups such as women, youth, and resident ethnic minorities, potentially arousing smoldering discontent. Therein, in my opinion, lies the attractiveness of direct election of pre-screened candidates for the office of the Katikkiro since it addresses both cultural and democratic concerns. The process of electing a vetted Katikkiro would require approved candidates to canvass the entire region, exposing the eventual winner to the totality of the electorate's concerns and needs.

The vetting Process

By design, the vetting process would, unlike in the past, encourage political parties and traditional authorities to work together, thereby helping bridge the longstanding gap between western and African concepts of legitimacy and accountability. Vetting would ensure that candidates for Katikkiro meet minimum criteria such as, for example, a clear understanding of, respect for, and appreciation of the region's cultural and political institutions --including the Kabaka; facility with the region's history, social norms and language; long-standing inter-generational residency; competence; and a clear vision for the kingdom. The process would not shut out any resident of Buganda from becoming the Katikkiro, provided he/she is among the candidates that pass the screening by the Kabaka, Bataka, and select technocrats. In cases where their candidates fail the screening process, political parties would be compelled to submit other aspiring contenders. The approved candidates preferably from at least two political parties would then present their manifestos to the people of Buganda, backed by their respective party organizations. Of these one would be elected Katikkiro, through universal adult suffrage.

Can a directly elected Katikkiro co-exist with the Kabaka?

There is a well-founded concern that a directly elected Katikkiro, having got his or her mandate from the people, may choose to relegate the Kabaka to the periphery. How would the Kabaka's position as constitutional head of Buganda be reconciled with the Katikkiro's mandate? In other words, how would Buganda ensure that an elected Katikkiro does not undermine the Kabaka's authority, or become an agent of potentially hostile forces?

That seeming conundrum can be resolved by provisions in Buganda's own constitution that ensure that an elected Katikkiro and the Lukiiko are obliged to get the assent of the Kabaka on any major initiatives. The King, consulting with his technocratic advisors, would have to sign off on all major legislative and administrative initiatives by the Buganda regional government before they become law, or take effect. The Katikkiro would be mandated to consult the Kabaka on all major decisions. This arrangement would not be without precedent. At independence a similar constitutional arrangement existed between Uganda's first ceremonial President Sir Edward Mutesa II and the Executive Prime Minister, Dr. Apollo Milton Obote.

Unlike conflicts of interest that rendered that national arrangement untenable, at the regional level there would not be such conflicts of interest not only because the Kabaka would be both the constitutional and, by tradition, supreme head of Buganda, but also because the Kabaka's and the Katikkiro's interests would be the same, the advancement of Buganda, its residents, and its interests. Further, unlike the previous national arrangement between the President and Prime Minister, in Buganda's constitution there would be no room for the Katikkiro to by pass the Kabaka's signature.

Enhancing the office and role of the Kabaka

Finally, in view of the Kabaka's role as the supreme authority in Buganda, it is imperative that the monarch's office continues to be perceived by future generations as vital to Buganda's prosperity and advancement beyond the cultural sphere. One way to ensure that is to establish the office of the Kabaka as a well-funded think-tank for Buganda, similar to organizations in the West (particularly the United States) that are filled with technocrats and scholars researching and publishing journals on economic, social, cultural, and political preferences of the population, in addition to generating new ideas for the benefit of policy makers.

The technocrats in the Kabaka's office would also assist him in assessing the implications of bills presented to him. The Office could publish a prestigious quarterly Buganda Royal Journal, perhaps with a forward by the Kabaka commenting on topics therein. Such a role for the Kabaka would accomplish two objectives: first, it would remind policy makers and politicians in Buganda of his central role; second, it would assure the people resident in Buganda that the Kabaka is aware of issues of concern to them and has staff engaged in helping devise solutions to them.

In conclusion, Buganda, and other regions, should be left to decide governance mechanisms that they find most suitable to their circumstances though in line with universal democratic and human rights values. Different regions may opt for different models, that is, between direct [Presidential style], and indirect [parliamentary style] elections for their regional premiers. In keeping with federalism, the central government, or its agents, should not dictate their choices.

Joseph Senyonjo, New York City, USA

Joseph_senyonjo@yahoo.com

Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!

Anti-federo politicians feeling the heat

2006-02-15T14:30:00.000+03:00

News February 15, 2006
Don’t vote anti-federo politicians, says Mengo
ROBERT MWANJE
MENGO

LUKIIKO members and the kingdom elders (Bataka) have asked the Baganda to drop anti-federo politicians in the forthcoming general elections.Busiro County Chief, Mr P.K. Ssebwaana, who is also a member of the Lukiiko, said the Kabaka's subjects should exploit the Febuary 23 elections to vote out politicians who do not favour the interests of the kingdom.

“Don't vote whoever is anti-federo. Look at councillors and MPs keenly and identify those who were bribed,” Ssebwana said during a Lukiiko meeting in Mengo on Tuesday.

“District chairmen and councillors who passed the Regional Tier Bill should also be dropped,”he said.

Supported moveThe proposal to drop anti-federo candidates was supported by a number of Lukiiko members including; Joseph Balikudembe (member), Damiano Lubega (member), Ndugwa Ssemakula (member of Bataka council), P.K. Ssengendo (Busiro county chief), Mudirikati Mukasa (Kyagwe county chief), Stanley Kijjambu (Singo county chief).

The remarks come days after the Lukiiko unanimously rejected the government's decision that a regional tier system be adopted for districts who want to form a regional government instead of adopting federalism.

The over 60 Lukiiko members re-stated Buganda's demand for a full federo system and vowed never to change their stand on any of the five points the kingdom handed over to the Constitutional Review Commission (CRC) chaired by Prof. Frederick Ssempebwa.

According to the regional tier system, the katikkiro has to be elected contrary to Buganda's traditions. The stormy Lukiiko session demanded for a federal system of governance.

The Lukiiko also rejected an elected katikkiro contending that electing a katikkiro goes against the culture and norms of Buganda. “Having looked at what is in the Constitution and what the people of Buganda demanded, the Lukiiko has resolved that Mengo remains the way it is today until any government in power grants us federo,” the kingdom's Attorney General, Mr Godfrey Lule, said.

“Buganda and all its cultures and norms will completely fade away if we accept a regional tier.” The Lukiiko recommended that the regional tier package was dangerous to the kingdom and would lead to its collapse.

The Katikkiro, Mr Dan Muliika, said Buganda's position on federo is clear and has not changed. Buganda wants the central government to grant the kingdom a federal status, return the 9,000 square miles of land which originally belong to the kingdom, Kampala to be considered as part of the kingdom among others.

Last year, the Parliament passed a law allowing the regional tier governance and recognised Kampala as part of Buganda but to be administered by the central government.

Two thirds of all the district councils ratified the law including Wakiso, Masaka, Mukono, among others. Ssebwana encouraged the people of Buganda not to yield to intimidation. The Lukiiko criticised the regional tier system describing it as a changed charter.
===============================================
Kooki cultural council rejects regional tier
Sadab Kitatta Kaaya.
RAKAI

KOOKI'S cultural council has rejected the proposed regional tier system of governance on grounds that it threatens the survival of the kingdom’s traditional institutions.

During a meeting at Rakai district headquarters on Febuary 11, the cultural council presided over by the Kamuswaga (cultural head), Mr Apollo Ssansa Kabumbuli II, resolved to back Mengo's stand on the issue. “Like the President appoints his own prime minister, the Kabaka should also be left with the liberty to appoint his own katikkiro,” Mr Kitayimbwa Mumiransanafu, a member of the council said.

“If they are talking about accountability, it should be the secretary for finance not the katikkiro to account for their billions,” he added.

Recently, in a resolution read by the kingdom`s Attorney General, Mr Godfrey Lule, after hours of deliberation, the Lukiiko (Buganda Parliament) said the regional tier system of governance was poisonous and was not the federal system cherished by Buganda.

The Constitutional Amendment Act enacted last year, provides for regional governments headed by a directly elected chief executive.In Buganda, it is proposed that the chief executive assumes the title of katikiiro (prime minister), but Buganda leaders are opposed to a directly elected Katikkiro.

This move puts a huge dent on months of negotiations between the Buganda government and the central government. Buganda wanted the central government to grant the kingdom a federal status and return the 9,000 square miles of land which originally belong to the kingdom but is now under the central government.Instead, the new tier arrangement among others dictates that the katikkiro be elected under adult suffrage.

This means the katikkiro can come from any other tribe in Buganda and not appointed by the Kabaka (king). The cultural council came up with a three- page memorandum with demands to be presented to President Yoweri Museveni today when he visits Rakai on his campaign trail.
“Among the issues we want to be addressed is the rehabilitation of the Lumbugu- Lwamaggwa- Lyantonde Road, exttention of a power line to the area as well as safe water,” the memo reads in part.

The memo also calls for the granting of a fully-fledged Federal system of governance to Buganda instead of the government's proposed regional tier.

Kabumbuli warned the cultural leaders against getting involved in partisan politics. He said the cultural institution was negotiating with the Rakai district administration for the return of the kingdom’s property. Last year only three districts; Kiboga, Wakiso, Mukono, returned Buganda's property.

Katikkiro disabuses Museveni on Federo

2006-02-14T00:44:00.000+03:00

Museveni irks Buganda Lukiiko
Monday, 13th February, 2006

By Josephine Maseruka MEMBERS of the Lukiiko (Buganda parliament) on Tuesday advised President Yoweri Museveni to desist from making provocative statements on Buganda’s demands, especially the federo issue. The enraged Lukiiko members regretted that Museveni, while addressing campaign rallies in Arua, reportedly referred to federo agitators as day-dreamers.

Katikkiro Dan Muliika said, “We heard that the President said federo agitators are dreamers and are like a blind person who goes outside hoping to see something.” Museveni reportedly added that he was focusing on the East African Federation and the African Union and not federo for tiny regions.

Muliika said, “I haven’t known the President to use such language. But if it is true that he made such provocative statements, he should be reminded that you cannot first solve wrangles in a neighbour’s home when your house is on fire. “Before you talk of a bigger federation, you must know that Buganda, which wants a federal status, is in Uganda, which is in East Africa and part of Africa.

Therefore, before focusing on a bigger federation, you must first settle the burning issues at home.”

Muliika said the Baganda are not known to be dreamers because it was their innovativeness, foresightedness, hard work and an organised system of governance that earned Uganda the ‘Pearl of Africa’ title. P.K. Ssengendo (sazza chief of Busiro) said Baganda are not in a hurry to get federo.

Buganda rejects tier, wants federo

2006-02-11T23:48:00.000+03:00

News February 12 - 18, 2006
Asuman Bisiika

On February 7, the Lukiiko passed a resolution demanding a federal status for Buganda Kingdom; hitherto thought to have been resolved by the constitutional provision for a regional tier government.

A federal state is a political entity that voluntarily cedes some powers to a union of equal entities (central government) while a regional tier government is created when the central government cedes (or devolves) power to subordinate administrative units.

The Lukiiko wants Buganda to be a federal state with political powers while the constitutional amendment provides for an administrative unit that falls within the central government’s power structure.

The provision for a regional tier government was the result of what the government and Mengo called a comprehensive discussion and resolution of the incessant demands for Buganda Kingdom’s federal status.

Former Local Government minister Bidandi Ssali who casts himself as a liberal and progressive Muganda, says the Lukiiko’s demand was the same old story without any creativity. He, however, says that the Lukiiko resolution was justified because the regional tier does not address some of the issues specific to Buganda.

“But the Lukiiko should be specific about the kind federalism they want not merely singing twagala federo. The challenge Mengo is facing is their failure to reconcile their demand for federal status and the reality on the ground. In my view, the regional tier should be recast to accommodate a political Lukiiko but remain silent on the cultural aspects of the Kingdom,” said Bidandi.

The regional tier governments are supposed to have elected leaders but conservative Baganda do not even countenance a scenario where the Katikkiro (Prime Minister), traditionally appointed by the Kabaka (king), is elected.

The challenge former Katikkiro Joseph Mulwanyamuli (and for that mater the Mengo establishment) faced was to reconcile the traditional structures of the kingdom with regional tier structures.

Appearing on CBS radio late last year, President Yoweri Museveni said that he would not support having an appointed Katikkiro. He was very categorical as to say that those who thought of an un-elected Katikkiro should forget.

A Mengo official says that the Baganda are only demanding what they want. “It is not logical that we should demand what we don’t want. We want federalism, and it is what we are demanding. It does not matter what the central government have in mind; the point is we should take to the table what we want,” said the source who did not want his name disclosed.
But former Buganda minister Peter Mulira, who said that the Lukiiko resolution surprised him called for caution.

“My personal view is that the issues for discussion are not irreconcilable. There is still a stage where some issues could be resolved without taking hard positions. For instance, the issue of electing the Katikkiro could be dealt with when Parliament enacts a law to operationalise the constitutional provisions for the regional tier. And before that, we should be studying the difference between federalism and devolution of power,” said Mulira.

So what does this new demand mean to Mr Museveni’s re-election bid? Or his presidency if he wins the February 23 poll? Or whoever wins the presidential elections?

Although the voting patterns in earlier polls have not been influenced by Mengo’s political sentiments, it (Mengo) still influences national politics in one way or the other. That is why Buganda’s demand for a federal status appears in almost all manifestoes of the presidential candidates.

Dr Jean Barya, a Makerere University don, says that the consequences of the new Lukiiko demand will depend on who wins the presidential elections.

“If Museveni wins, the relationship between Buganda and the central government may be problematic because he has already made his position very clear. He does not want any power centres outside the central government power structures,” said Barya.

M7 snubs continued demands for Federo

2006-02-06T22:25:00.000+03:00

By Administrator Editor

Monday, 06 February 2006President Yoweri Museveni has said that the demand for ‘Federo’ by Buganda is a waste of time.

Museveni said that his dream is a bigger and stronger East Africa.

Addressing a rally in Arua, Museveni said the African problem has been selfish leaders who look inward and frustrate efforts to create a one united Africa.

Museveni said he will remain in active politics till his dream of a powerful East Africa and Africa is realized.

Museveni’s main challenger, Dr. Kiiza Besigye of the Forum for Democratic Change, recently promised Federo for Buganda if elected President.

Last month, the presidential candidate of the Uganda Peoples Congress, Miria Obote, also said her party wants a federal arrangement for the whole country.

Museveni’s government has only granted a regional tier system for districts that may wish to co-operate.

Katikkiro appeals to Obote over Federal

2006-02-06T22:19:00.000+03:00

By Nasser Kayanja

Monday, 06 February 2006The Katikkiro of Buganda “Owe’kitibwa” Dan Muliika has appealed to UPC President Miria Obote to inform people in other regions that a federal system is not only for the prosperity of Buganda but the entire nation.

The Katikkiro was giving welcome remarks to a UPC delegation headed by Miria Obote at Bulange in Mengo who went there to seek reconciliation with Buganda.

He says Buganda is going through hard time to reclaim its property from the central government due to its alliances since 1966. He advised her to convince other regions of the advantages of a federal system.

Miria Obote says UPC recognizes the need for a federal arrangement for this country and to allow the Kabaka to appoint his Katikkiro. She called for reconciliation and unity for all Ugandans.

Katikkiro must be political

2005-12-23T09:42:00.000+03:00

CHAIRMEN OF REGIONAL TIER GOVERNMENTS MUST BE POLITICAL LEADERS.

a) Last Saturday H.E the President appeared on MAMBO BADO. This was very exemplary as a leader to dialogue and interact with the general public.
b) The Politics around the Regional Governments in a multiparty Politics is that the most popular political party will win the general elections and the candidate for that party will take the chair of the Regional council or Parliament as the Regional Government may decide.
c) Parliament passed the agreement and made it into law between the two negotiating teams led by the Katikiro of Buganda on Mengo side and Hon. Amama Mbabazi on the central Government side. Without any amendment but included all other Regional headquarters to be municipal councils to give an acceptable terms for Mengo municipality.
d) In the agreement it was agreed and signed by both parties that the head of the Regional Tier will be elected by adult suffrage and the current Katikiro of Buganda signed the agreement.
e) The Regional Government will have political and financial accountability to the tax payers and traditional rulers under article 246 of the constitution can not allow them to be political partisans.
f) The resolution of the heads of clans to scr! een candidates for the head of Regional Government in Buganda is very good and it should be supported by every body, because it ensures that whoever wins the elections has his origin from Buganda and that he knows the norms and culture of Buganda. Although the resolution came after the constitution amendment it can be accommodated later in the first by laws made by the Regional Government of Buganda.
g) It will not be prudent for the Kabaka of Buganda to appoint the Katikiro in the multi party system as the people will always trace back the party of the appointed Katikiro and members of other parties will feel left out and! may reject the appointed Katikiro.
h) This is not going to be the first time Katikiro is elected. Owek. Michel Kintu competed with Owek. Mugwanya and Mugwanya lost. That is why he started DP to oppose the bad policy of only protestant to take the chair of Katikiro. Mayanja Nkangi competed but his opponents withdraw his candidature on the day of elections. It is only Owek. Ssemogerere who was appointed by the Kabaka because Uganda was under the Movement system and there was no active political parties.
i) There is a lot which will be achieved under the Regional Tier. Buganda stand to benefit Buganda for the first time in the last 35 years will came back on Uganda’s map. There are eight services which will be rendered to the people of Buganda and other regions. We shall have a head of the Region and six Ministers all flying Buganda’s flag. Buganda will have a municipality including all the historical sites; Kampala of Central Government will have permanent boundaries. So that it can not expand to include other areas of Buganda. International cities like Washington, DC, New York etc are all like that.
j) At the beginning of the negotiation it was suggested to live Katikio appointed by H.M the Kabaka and to have politically elected chairman of the council. The cultural Katikiro would head heads of clans and Royals and the elected political head would head the elected council but this was rejected.
k) Owek. Kat! ende who is a reknown lawyer explained very well the out come of the negotiations to the great Lukiko at Mengo and Members of Parliament from Buganda. We appreciated the efforts of both parties and agreed to work together and get what was remaining with the central Government but the opposition groups camping at Mengo have continued to fuel negatively those issues to deny president Museveni, Buganda votes but people of good judgment will always see the realities of the time and give Museveni their votes.

By Hon. Henry Mutebi Kityo
Member of Parliament
Mawokota South
Email hidden

Miria promises Buganda federo

2005-12-21T22:25:00.000+03:00

EMMANUEL MULONDO
Kampala

THE President of the Uganda Peoples Congress, Ms Miria Obote, yesterday said the party wants a federal arrangement for the whole country and that the Kabaka of Buganda should be left to appoint his Katikkiro.

Miria also expressed readiness to apologise and reconcile with Buganda for the abolition of the kingdom by her husband’s government.

"For its part, the UPC has been preparing to put this unfortunate history behind our back and move on. UPC favours a return to a federal system for the whole of Uganda. Federalism worked well in the past and can still work," Ms Obote told a press conference, the first she has addressed since her election as party president and presidential candidate.

Insist on talks
Her husband and former UPC president Dr Apollo Milton Obote, abolished the kingdom in 1967, after attacking Kabaka Muteesa's palace, forcing him into a London exile where he died.

Flanked by the party vice president, Mr Livingston Okello Okello, secretary general Peter Walubiri, party spokesman Joseph Ochieno among others, Miria said she was "still pursuing" an audience with the Kabaka of Buganda Ronald Muwenda She agreed that the events leading to the abolition of the kingdom were partly due a "clash between two leaders (Sir Edward Muteesa and the late Dr Apollo Milton Obote) and the fusion of the cultural and political roles of both leaders.

Miria said the party would engage traditional rulers and kingdoms and "look into their aspirations and demands" to ensure a "harmonious co-existence with the government".

President Museveni recently insisted he was against the Kabaka appointing the Katikkiro.

Miria reiterated that "UPC has the confidence that the Kabaka would be in position to appoint a Katikkiro who demands the confidence of all political parties in the Lukiiko and the interest of Buganda and its Bataka (elders)." She called for a national truth and reconciliation commission.

Regional tier is not same as federalism

2005-12-21T11:17:00.000+03:00

Wednesday, 21st December, 2005

SIR — An all-inclusive federal system is achievable. On the establishment of federalism in Uganda, the Movement government had the political capital to do so, but lost the golden opportunity to unite the country and to resolve the federo issue for good. The Movement waffled and pushed through some sort of half-baked federo also known as kifederofedero.

Now, the parties (CP, FDC and DP) are promising a much better arrangement — an all-inclusive federal system of governance. Under the regional tier, which the Movement government is offering, the regions are not allowed to write their own constitutions, and, in the absence of taxation powers, are almost entirely dependent on central government transfers.

The tier is simply a modified decentralisation scheme— a top-down approach with the central government dictating the powers and operational limits of the regions hence turning the regions into mere agents of the centre.

The regional tier is clearly not federalism. If the regional tier is such a good thing why is it only being pushed in Buganda? Federalism is not complicated at all.

------------
F. N. Lugemwa
Kampala

Museveni insists on elected Katikkiro

2005-12-17T21:12:00.000+03:00

JUDE LUGGYA
KAMPALA

PRESIDENT Yoweri Museveni has vowed never to support appointment of the Katikkiro by the Kabaka. “I absolutely oppose the Kabaka to appoint the Katikkiro. I repeat, I cannot accept the idea of appointing the Katikkiro,” Museveni confidently said, prompting the audience to boo him.
He was speaking at CBS’s Mambo Bado political talk show on Saturday at Bulange, Mengo. Gloomy expressions covered the faces of people around as they kept murmuring and complaining about his stand.

Museveni said that during negotiations with Mengo officials led by Katikkiro Mulwanyamuli Ssemwogerere, they agreed on an elected Katikkiro, but he was surprised to hear that Mengo had not explained it to their subjects.

Museveni was responding to a request by Deputy Katikkiro Godfrey Kaaya Kavuma and other speakers that he should support the Kabaka to appoint his Katikkiro.

The regional-tier rules under which Buganda’s federo will be managed require that the head of the government, in this case the Katikkiro, be elected. “It is not true that every citizen qualifies to contest for Katikiroship, but those who are eligible are those from the indigenous tribes like the Banyala, Banyankole, Baluli, Banyoro, Bakooki and the Bassese,” he said amidst deafening heckling from the audience. He said those who support the Kabaka to handpick the Katikkiro want to push the Kabaka into an abyss, which is suicidal.

Resolving the Buganda problem

2005-12-13T13:10:00.000+03:00

The Buganda problem will remain unresolved until five things are accepted and put in place:

1. A Buganda constitution subject to the national constitution in which the Kabaka is recognised as the titular head or constitutional monarch.

2. A government at Mengo headed by an elected Katikkiro and properly funded.

3. An elected Lukiiko.

4. Recognition of the eighteen counties as the districts of Buganda which will then unite to form a regional tier of Mengo. The present proposed tier is viewed as alien.

5. A system of lower local government based on egombolola (LC3), omuluka (LC2) and ekyalo (LC1).

46 districts support regional tier

2005-12-08T23:51:00.000+03:00

46 districts support regional tier

EMMANUEL MULONDO
Kampala

Fourty-six out of the 69 districts in the country voted in favour of the Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 2, 2005 which provides for cooperation of districts.Daily Monitor has learnt that the exercise of ratification of the Bill was concluded successfully and results returned to the Electoral Commission (EC).

District councils have been voting on the matter which was referred to them last month after the Speaker of Parliament, Mr Edward Ssekandi, asked the commission to oversee the ratification process. Parliament passed the Bill in August.Article 260 of the Constitution requires that amendment of articles to do with local governments be supported by not less than two thirds of all MPs and ratified by at least two thirds of all the district councils in the country. "

So 46 out of 69 districts is I think well above the two thirds required," a source in the Electoral Commission said.The EC Spokesman, Mr Okello Jabweli, said, "The commission was given a task. The results are back. The commission will transmit the results to the Speaker. It's the Speaker to announce the results."

He said he was yet to get the details, but Daily Monitor learnt that some of the districts that declined to ratify included Bundibugyo, Kalangala, Kampala, Kapchorwa, Luweero, Nebbi, Mpigi, Katakwi, Kamwenge, Kaberamaido, Nakapiripirit and Bukwo.

A source said the commission would before the end of the week communicate the results to the Speaker who will announce them to the nation.

The Bill shall now be forwarded to the President for assent. It will then become law, ready for implementation.Districts that decide to cooperate shall be in position to put up a joint administration to handle specified tasks, which shall be funded by the cooperating districts and the central government.

However, the arrangement has been criticised by the Mengo establishment, who view it as watering down of the region's federal quest. Mengo has already sounded itself against the provision to have an elected regional leader (Katikkiro), the financing of the regional government and the administration of land within the region.

"We believe the ratification is not the end of the road. Before the President assents to the Bill, it can always be returned to Parliament for review. A lot of things can be revisited," Mr Charles Peter Mayiga, the Minister in charge of Youth and Cabinet Affairs in the Mengo government, said."

A procedure is there for revisiting it," he said.

Statement of the Month

2005-12-02T23:10:00.000+03:00

Jesus Christ is my role model - Madam Museveni

Regional Tier Arrangement

2005-11-27T16:19:00.000+03:00

Dear Reader,

The government of Uganda has embarked on introducing regional tier governments in Uganda come July 2006. Some people call this arrangement Kifederofedero - watered down federo - meant to appease the Baganda. They say, this is short of true federalism that will cause more trouble than what we had in 1966.

On the other hand, there are voices that say that this is a good starting point from where more can be demanded. It is utopian to think that true federo would be implemented in one go.

What say you? What do you suggest needs to be done to get to Nirvana?

The Uganda Opposition

2005-11-23T17:14:00.000+03:00

Dr. Muwanga-Zake,

There was a time when they pulled themselves together, formed a G6, and demanded certain things from government. The government became so scared that they responded with a Kiyonga Committee. They should have kept on with the G6 idea, as this was keeping the government on its toes. Why did they drop this idea?

It is not possible that Museveni/donors will provide the platform that opposition must have to do their work. They must toil for it, make their hands dirty, be seen to be doing something.

Have you noticed that State House is a law unto itself? It directs whatever it wants, as it has "banned" advertisements from CBS (read Bukedde). Where is the opposition to challenge that? It is no where because many of them are praying to be called by Museveni to become Ministers or such. It's as you say politics of the stomach. So, they have made their bellies their platform of unleashing their pettiness on the taxpayer.

So, how do we move forward. Any ideas?

Cheers, M. Kibuka
==========================================
Federalism is the only way forward
http://www.federo.com