The Buganda Kingdom
Constitutional Review Commission consisted of:
1. Owek. J. W. Katende –
Chairman
2. Owek. A. Makubuya – Vice
Chairman
3. Owek. C. P. Mayiga –
Secretary
4. Owek. Haji Ssemakalu – Member
5. Owek. Kayita Musoke – Member
6. Owek. Ssava Sserubiri –
Member
7. Owek. Kamala Kanamwangi –
Member
The
presentation focused basically on three areas:
1. The Federal System of
Government in Uganda.
2. Land Ownership.
3. The Status of Traditional
Leaders.
A.
THE FEDERAL SYSYTEM OF
GOVERNMENT IN UGANDA
1.
Executive Summary about
Federalism
Federalism is a system of
Governance. It is not about getting rid
of the Central Government. It is not
about party politics. It is not about
multi-partism or absence of it. It is
not about religious differences. It is
not about tribalism. It is not for the
benefit of Buganda alone. It is not
about monarchism. It is not about land
or dispossessing people from land. It is
not about supremacy of one region over others.
It is about helping the
Central Government to provide services more efficiently and provide more
effective development to the people. It
is about sharing power and responsibilities between the Central Government and
Regional Governments.
Federation is about providing
more prosperity, more wealth, more feeling of belonging and participation in
governance by marginalized and non-marginalized people. The Federal system of Government minimizes
possibilities of waging war against the Central Government. It minimizes internal acts of terrorism and
discontent against the central Government.
It has inbuilt safeguards
that ensure uniform growth for all the regions of the country, and additional
measures to make sure that marginalized or less developed regions of the country
can catch up, through the system of equalization grants and affirmative action
programmes. These ensure that regions
with greater income and development contribute a pre-agreed percentage of their
earnings to the development of areas, which may be less developed.
It should be noted that
Federalism, though different from Decentralization, does not contradict or
exclude Decentralization. The two
systems can and should co-exist and complement each other, at the Regional
level. Advocating Federal does not mean
orseek to get rid of decentralization from the regional tier. Nor does it mean getting rid of District
leaders or other Local Government Officials.
WHAT
IS THE FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT?
Perhaps the easiest way to
understand and to explain the Federal System of governance is to set out the
most commonly asked questions and misconceptions about the system. Responding to these questions and concerns
will effectively clarify why the people of Buganda and the people of Uganda
generally desire a Federal System of Government.
It is important to answer
these questions by referring to our history and experience with the Federal
System of Government in order to ensure that we learn from our past mistakes.
What
is the Federal System of Government?
In the most basic sense,
“Federalism” is a national system of governance in a country with one Central
Government for the country and several regional governments.
What
does the Central Government do under this type of arrangement?
The Central Government has
control over national matters like defence, citizenship, foreign relations,
telecommunication, electricity, inter-region highways, dams, rail networks,
airports, national monuments and natural resources and other such overall
national policies.
What
do the regional governments do under this arrangement?
The regional governments take
care of regional matters in the particular regions like schools, health
services, feeder roads, culture, land, local services, local government, local
development plans, local economic policy.
What
is the objective of Federalism?
The primary philosophy under
this system is that it is the people in the various regions of the country who
are best suited to determine affairs of that region. The regional governments are given autonomy
to decide their regional affairs themselves on the terms that best suit them.
Has
Uganda ever been governed under a Federal System of Government?
Yes. From the very foundation of the Country,
Uganda was a Federation of the Kingdom States of Ankole, Buganda, Bunyoro, Toro
the Territory of Busoga and the other non-kingdom state that make up the rest
of Uganda.
How
was this Federal Arrangement arrived at?
Each of the Kingdom States
entered into an Independent Protection Agreement with the British Colonial
Government to give up their respective independence and join a new Federal
State known as Uganda, on terms spelt out in the respective Protection
Agreements. In the case of Buganda, this
was under the 1900 Buganda Agreement.
It was under these Agreements
that the very diverse and culturally different peoples in Uganda came together
as one nation known as Uganda.
What
was the relationship between the various kingdoms and colonial government?
Under these arrangements,
each kingdom state remained in the union of Uganda upon the terms and
conditions set out in its particular agreement.
The powers and duties of the respective states, as well as the powers
and duties of the Colonial Central Government were properly addressed in these
Agreements and the two institutions worked well together.
How
long did this arrangement last?
This arrangement continued
throughout the colonial times until the protection Agreement expired on 8th
October 1962, at independence.
Even at Independence, both
the British Government as well as the pre-independence Ugandan leaders
recognized that it was important for the people of Uganda as a whole to
continue being together as one nation group known as Uganda that can
meaningfully pursue national objectives and aspirations on the world stage.
But at the same time, they
also realized the inevitable truism: that the people who made up this nation
state of Uganda were people from different cultural and historical backgrounds,
with varying cultural and social needs, aspirations and traditions.
Amidst these differences, a
compromise position emerged, at the Lancaster Conference, in the form of a
Federal System of Government. This
Federal System permitted the various Kingdoms and non-kingdom states to continue
following their traditional ways of life and fulfill their cultural and social
obligations and aspirations, within the umbrella system of one nation that
pursued national objectives and goals.
After 1955, the Kabaka became a non-political monarch.
At Independence, the system
of Government, arrived at by agreement of all parts of Uganda, was embodied in
a document known as the 1962 Constitution.
What
were the basics underlying this Federal arrangement?
During the colonial period,
Uganda had organized into various Kingdom States and districts of peoples with
relatively homogeneous ethnic backgrounds.
The philosophy was that people should be grouped together into variable
regional units, with each unit being made up of people who shared the same
traditions, history, language, culture and traditional beliefs.
What
happened in the non-kingdom areas of Uganda?
In the case of non-Kingdom
states of Uganda, the system of Administration divided the nation into large
district groups, with each district large enough to encompass whole ethnic
groups with the above characteristics.
There were very few exceptions to this general rule.
The colonial districts were
much larger ad more economically viable units than the current fragmented
mostly unviable districts. Many of these
districts were governed directly from the centre and did not benefit from the
Federal System. Although these were
negatively impacted by being administered from the centre, the colonial
government mitigated their lack of benefits of full Federal by grouping and
administering them through “quasi federal,” large and economically viable
regional blocks named Northern Region, Eastern Region and Western Region.
How
were the Federal Regions Administered?
During the colonial period,
the various states and districts were administered through their leaders and
cultural institutions where these existed.
For example, under the 1900 Buganda Agreement, the Kingdom of Buganda
remained a Kingdom as a whole, and was administered through the Kabaka (King),
the Katikkiro (Prime Minister), the Abakungu (Ministers) the Lukiiko
(Parliament), and the local government administrative structure from the Masaza
to Batongole. Similar arrangements
worked with the rest of Uganda. This
Federal and Semi-Federal arrangement was maintained by the 1962 Constitution.
Why
did the colonial government rely on traditional leaders and institutions in the
governance of Uganda?
The British colonial
government recognized that traditional leaders and cultural institutions played
a very major role in the development and transformation of society. They also realized that it was much easier to
mobilize people of similar ethnic backgrounds to work together, through their
traditional institutions for development.
It was for this reason that they relied upon the traditional
institutions to achieve the rapid transformation of societies in Uganda.
Did
the Federal arrangement work in Uganda?
In all Uganda’s recorded
history, the period between 1945 and 1967 was the period that marked the
fastest level of development of Ugandan society during which we saw a very
rapid economic transformation.
Most of the institutions,
schools and colleges, roads, hospitals and much of our physical infrastructure
were all built during this period.
Uganda’s economic growth rate
in the 1950’s was one of the fastest in the world. We were a more economically advanced society
than the famous Asian Tiger nations like Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and
Taiwan. In East Africa, we were far
ahead of our neighbours; Kenya and Tanzania and other nations in the
region. Uganda was then known as the
Switzerland of Africa.
What
happened to the Federal System of Government in Uganda?
In 1966, the Kabaka’s palace
was invaded by the Central Government and the Kabaka was forced into
exile. Uganda’s Federal System was
unilaterally abolished in contravention of the pre-agreed 1962
Constitution. This was done without any
consultation or consent of the people of Uganda.
In 1967, a new Constitution
was put in place that abolished Federal arrangements all over Uganda. This Constitution also unilaterally abolished
the institutions of traditional and cultural leaders in Uganda.
Why
was the Federal System removed? Was it
because it did not work?
Various reasons can be
advanced for the forceful overthrow of the system, but the most important one
was simply the clash between the two leaders at the time.
Evidence of the fact that it
was this clash and not the failure of the Federal System, can be found in the
speech made by Prime Minister Milton Obote to the National Parliament on 30th
June, 1966. This speech is reported in
the Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 1st Session, 1966-67, 2nd
Series, Volume 63, from pages 529 onwards.
At page 534, hansard reports, in Obote’s own words that “the cause of
trouble is the ambition of Sir Edward Muteesa and nothing more.”
Furthermore, although Obote
invaded the Palace I 1966, when he introduced his Pigeonhole Constitution in
April 1966 he did not, under that Constitution, abolish the federal System of
Government for Uganda. Instead he
engaged in dialogue with the Buganda leadership to find out whether they would
install another Prince as the Kabaka.
It was only after Buganda
refused to have any other Kabaka but Mutesa II that Obote decided in May 1967
(over a year later), to abolish the Federal System and to rule the whole
country from the centre.
This he did by introducing
the 1967 Constitution, under which he renamed Uganda a Republic.
The clash between the two
leaders was exacerbated by the problems inevitably caused when a new position
of head of State (a political role) was created in 1964. A king, who was the head of his own regional
kingdom, occupied this new contradictory position of the national Head of
State.
The merger of traditional
leadership of a kingdom and political leadership of the whole nation, led to an
inevitable clash between the two institutions, as well as between the President
and the Prime Minister. Lessons must
obviously be drawn from this experience.
The Federal System that
worked well throughout the colonial period and in the early years after
independence thus came to an end.
What happened to Uganda after
the overthrow of the system?
From the overthrow of the
Federal System, Uganda as a nation state begin its journey of steady decline
for over two decades, with unprecedented terror, tyranny, lawlessness, infamy
and rogue-state status around the world.
The National Resistance
Movement resolved to fight this tyranny and went to bush to return peace,
democracy and prosperity of Uganda. This
liberation war was fully actively supported by the Kabaka and the people of
Buganda, as well as very many people elsewhere in the country. Many in Luweero and elsewhere lost their lives
for this cause.
Are Traditional Leaders and
Institutions dangerous to the development of the Country?
The NRM Government allowed
and facilitated the return of the traditional leaders, and the revival of
tradition, cultural and social aspirations of the people of Uganda.
Although this was feared by
many opponents as a return to the “dark ages,” and all kinds of imaginary fears
were predicted by the ever present prophets of doom, we have all seen that
these traditional institutions have enabled Uganda to continue its peaceful
journey of revival.
The traditional leaders have
contributed tremendously to the unity, happiness and development of their
various people’s in Uganda. Under
Federalism, their potential as mobilizers for development would even be greater.
Valuable lessons have
obviously been learnt from the History of Uganda, and the 1966 Crisis. The people of Buganda, just as the Central
Government, appreciate the great need to iron out the areas of controversy that
led to the 1966 crisis and the collapse of Federalism.
The people of Buganda, and it
is believed many other people from other parts of Uganda would like the
question of the Federal System of Government to be revisited from other parts
of Uganda, would like the question of Federal System of Government to be revisited
and re-introduced with necessary modifications to bring the system in line with
today’s prevailing social, economic and other conditions and circumstances.
Does
the Federal System of Government work anywhere in the world?
The Federal System of
Government is very popular and has worked successfully in many countries around
the world. Good examples include: the
United States of America, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany, Australia,
Brazil, India, Mexico, Switzerland, Ethiopia, Belgium, South Africa, Malaysia,
Spain, and Belgium to mention some.
These are among the most stable and prosperous countries in the world.
Does
it work in developing countries? Does it
work in Africa?
All the above examples show,
the system works well for both developed countries, like the United States and
Germany, and also for developing nations, like Brazil, Malaysia and India.
Does the federal System of
Government work in countries with diverse ethnic groups?
Yes. As a matter of fact, most of the countries
where there is Federalism have very diverse peoples. A good example is India.
With a population in excess
of 1 billion people, and a physical size of more than 50 times the total land
area of Uganda, India is governed under a Federal System of government, and it
has never had a military coup or an illegal overthrow of government in over 50
years of independence. India has in
excess of 1,000 different ethnic groups, yet it is the world’s largest
democracy. Brazil has over 600million
people and is the largest country in Latin America. Its conditions are not different from those
of India, yet Federalism has thrived there too, and Brazil has had relatively
stable governments.
Does
the Federal System work in small countries or countries with small populations?
Size is irrelevant. Even small countries like Switzerland and
Belgium some of which are much smaller than Uganda and with even smaller
populations, function with very effective Federal Systems.
Are there any Federal Systems
in the world based on ethnic origins, cultures, or languages?
Yes. A god African example is the State of
Ethiopia, where the Federal regions are divided on the basis of ethnic origin.
Other examples in the world
include the Federal Republic of Germany, Switzerland, and Canada. Even the United Kingdom, which has had a
unitary government for centuries, has at least realized the merits and strength
of federalism along cultural and ethnic lines.
It has introduced some form of Federal arrangement based on ethnic
origins amongst the English, Welsh and Scots.
In Uganda, during the
colonial period and under the 1962 constitution, Federalism was partially
practiced on a regional basis with each region being viable and comprising
people of similar languages, culture and traditions.
After years’ of
investigation, interviewing and receiving people’s views, the Odoki
Constitutional Commission recommended (under recommendation 18.84 of its Report
that, “the demarcation of local administration boundaries has not always been
logical or natural.” “It recommended
that, “A fair system should take into consideration, among other things, common
language, culture, geographical features, natural boundaries and economic
viability.
This recommendation was
adopted!
Does a Federal System based
on similar cultures, traditions, languages and beliefs work?
Yes. In Ethiopia, after the failed experiment of a
unitary government that led to a bitter civil war, and the secession of
Eretria, the horn of Africa nation embarked on a bold experiment to introduce a
new Federal arrangement based on these standards.
Multi-lingual Switzerland,
and the Federal Republic of Germany also have similar systems.
A Federal System based on
similarity of cultures, traditions, languages and ethnic origin, works and, in
many cases, works even better than the case of a Federal System which joins
diverse people, with no common cultures, languages and traditions.
Why does the Federal System
of Government work in countries where it is practiced?
The Federal System of
Government works in the countries where it is because the respective central
governments recognize that the best people to understand and devise solutions
to the problems of the various Federal regions in such countries are the people
of those regions themselves.
In India for example, the
Central Government in New Delhi knows tha the problems of Tamil Nadhu are
probably different from those of Uttar Pradesh.
It recognizes the diversity of their problems and knows that it is not
in the best position to decide for these people how their problems should be
solved.
Even in the great United
States of America, the different states in different regions have different
problems. For example, states on the
West Coast like California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are very
dry. Their annual concerns are
earthquakes, fires that burn throughout these states, and droughts. Their biggest concerns are to build structures
for irrigation, to build earthquake proof buildings, and improve fire-fighting
techniques.
By contrast, the States on
the US East Coast like Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut have their concerns
as long cold winters. Southern States
like Florida, and Louisiana worry about tornadoes and floods which destroy
property worth millions of dollars annually.
The Federal Government
recognized early that USA was a collection of States with different problems,
the Federal Government does not purport to know how to solve all the different
problems, it recognized that the States themselves should be the best entities
to deal with these problems.
Would the Federal System of
Government work in Uganda?
Yes. It must be recognized that Uganda is made up
of various different groups of people with diverse backgrounds and
cultures. We must also acknowledge the
reality that the majority of our people are rural and unsophisticated. They live and practice their traditional ways
of life.
It must also be acknowledged
that, just like in the United States, different regions of Uganda have
different problems. For example, the
people of Soroti District have to contend with violent cattle rustling which
results in terrible loss of life and property, Karamoja and parts of Ankole
badly need Valley dams, Kalangala needs reliable ferry services. The list of unique local needs and priorities
that are often ignored by the centre is endless.
The people in their regions
need to be given an opportunity to decide on their priorities.
Do the people of Uganda like
the Federal System of Government?
The will of the people on the
question of the Federal System of Government was tested by the Odoki
Constitutional Commission. The results
of the views collected by that Commission showed that the Federal System of
Government was very popular not only in Buganda, but also in Uganda as a whole.
Sixty five percent (65%) of
the people of Uganda and Ninety seven percent (97%) of the people of Buganda
wanted the Federal System of Government.
The investigations, research
and interviews carried out by the Buganda Constitutional Commission have
confirmed that the views of the people of Buganda and Uganda on this matter
have not changed.
How are the financial
arrangements in the Federal System?
Funds or percentages of funds
to which a Federal State is entitled or which the Central Government is bound
to give the Federal State are pre-determined and cannot be unilaterally
changed. So are methods of raising revenue.
CONCLUSION
ON FEDERALISM
1. The Federal System of
Government is good for increased productivity, development, prosperity and
wealth for all Ugandans.
2. The System is not a Buganda
issue alone. Federalism is for the
benefit of all Ugandans.
3. The System ensures that local
people have a say in how they should be governed. This minimizes chances of terrorism, rebel
activity and discontent.
4. The system provides
employment at regional levels, with decisions of who to employ being made
locally by the people of the area.
5. The system is desired by the
majority of the people in Buganda and in Uganda as a whole.
The basic principle that
emerges from this report is that different regions, peoples, cultures and
groups of people have competing priorities.
The people most affected by a particular problem are best positioned to
devise and implement strategies to solve them within a national constitutional
framework. This accelerates development,
good governance and contentment.
B. LAND
OWNERSHIP
The 9,000 square miles of
land taken from Buganda
The ownership and management
of the 9,000 sq. miles should revert to the Kingdom of Buganda.
The 9,000 sq. miles of land
had been entrusted to the Crown Government for protection and development,
under the 1900 Agreement. It was
returned to the Kingdom of Buganda at Independence. It was forcefully taken over after 1966. Just like expropriated properties of Asians
and traditional leaders have been returned and it is the well established
Government policy that such properties should be returned, this land should be
returned to the Kingdom of Buganda.
Returning it to Buganda does
not mean affecting any existing or future rights of lawful owners or occupants,
anymore than the return of Kabaka’s land in 1993 affected any legitimate owners
or occupants. The return of the 9,000
sq. miles does not mean evictions, or displacements of people occupying parts
of this land. All people, Baganda and
non Baganda will continue to enjoy all rights on that land and no one will be
victimized.
The
Land Act, 1998
The Constitution of Uganda in
1995 introduced the concepts of ‘bonafide occupants’ and ‘lawful occupants’ of
land and security of occupancy. The
Constitution further provided that Parliament shall enact a law to give meaning
to these terms. The law that resulted
was the Land Act, 1988.
The land Act, 1988 needs to
be repealed and its aims and objectives should be revisited to ensure that it
adheres to well established principles of Constitutional Law and does not
violate Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
In enforcing the rights of Bonafide and lawful occupants as set out in
the Constitution, it tramples on the Constitutional Fundamental Rights and
Freedoms of Land Owners.
When the Land Act
automatically creates tenancies, and takes away the land owner’s right to
negotiate fair tenancy terms; when it restricts the land owner’s right to use
the land; when it restricts the rights of a title holder to transfer, pledge or
mortgage land; it is taking away the essence of ownership, and is interfering
with the property rights of the land owners, which is unconstitutional.
The unconstitutional 1998
Land Act deprived land owners who had invested in land, of their property
without complying with provisions of Article 26(2) of the 1995 Constitution
which provides as follows:
“No person shall be
compulsorily deprived of property or any interest or right over property of any
description except where the following conditions are satisfied:
a) The taking of possession or
acquisition is necessary for public use or in the interest of defence, public
safety, public order, public morality or public health; and
b) The compulsory taking of
possession or acquisition of property is made under a law which makes provision
for:-
i.
Prompt
payment of fair and adequate compensation, prior to the taking of possession or
acquisition of the property; and
ii.
A
right of access to court of law by any person who has an interest or right of
property.
The 1998 Land Act deprived
land owners many of whom had invested their savings into land were suddenly deprived
of their interest and right in their land for an inadequate compensation of Shs
1,000 per year not paid prior to its being taken, and the taking was not
necessary for “public use or the interest of defence, public safety, public
order, public morality or public health.”
The Land Act also imposed the
above paltry fee irrespective of the size, location or use of the land. This does not make economic sense at all.
This issue is very important
to the people of Buganda, because it directly affects the land returned to the
Kabaka under the “Ebyaffe” statute in 1993.
Although on paper, the Kabaka holds 350 sq. miles of land which were
returned to him, in actual fact, he cannot use this land, nor does he benefit from
it. The issue does not affect the Kabaka
alone. It also affects the people of
Buganda and Uganda, whether they are mailo or leaseholders. Since the early 1920’s, the safety form of
investment for an ordinary Muganda has always been land. Land is a valuable and sacred asset in
Buganda.
Objection to the extremely
unfair rent of shs 1,000 irrespective of size or location or economic activity
on the land is not in disregard of tenants’ or occupants’ rights. Throughout our history, the Busuulu and
Envujjo laws found an appropriate compromise between land owners and
tenants. These laws gave sufficient
protection to tenants and squatters, while at the same time giving protection
to the landlord. In this manner a viable
economic relationship between the two groups emerged. The current Land Act upset these
relationships and is not workable.
It is possible to achieve the
public interest objectives of Land Act in other manners that do not violet
fundamental freedoms and property rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The
Constitution needs to be revisited on questions of ‘bonafide’ and ‘lawful
occupants’ having regard to the rights of landholders. If the Constitution clarifies the issue, then
the Land Act can be adjusted accordingly.
The issue of the Land Act is raised here because it emanates from the
above Constitutional provisions.
C. THE
STATUS OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS
Tax Exemption for Traditional
Leaders:
The Kabaka and other
traditional leaders should be exempted from paying tax in recognition of their
developmental, mobilizing, cultural and leadership roles. This had been the position when in 1993when
the institutions were restored. The law
restoring the traditional institutions also provided that they should be
exempted from taxation. Through an
inadvertent omission, when the provisions relating to restoration of the
traditional institutions were imported into the 1995 Constitution, the
provisions relating to tax exemption were repealed with the rest of the 1993
Statute.
Immunity
from Criminal Prosecution:
The traditional leaders should
also be exempted from criminal prosecution.
This is the position in many countries such as Ghana, where traditional
leaders similar to ours exist.
Protocol
The people of a particular
area hold their traditional leader in high esteem. They therefore view it as a humiliation that
the Traditional leader should be relegated to the current low protocol ranking
on State functions taking place. We
propose that the Traditional leader in whose area a State function is held
should take precedence over all people except the President and Vice President.
CONCLUSION
TO SUBMISSION
1. This report is not
exhaustive, but it addresses the core issues of concern to the people of
Buganda. Separation and individual
recommendations may and will be made on other issues which the people in
Buganda would like to be reviewed in this Constitutional Review process.
2. This report is a result of
recommendations made by the Buganda Constitutional Review Commission after
interviewing a variety of people from Buganda and outside and receiving
representations from various people within and outside Uganda.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
2.
3.
4.
5.
I.
J.
No comments:
Post a Comment