The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
Nambooze, Sseggona back
Meanwhile, Mabairizi wants the Kabaka to surrender some of the land titles that were recently handed to him by President Museveni saying the land belongs to Baganda not the Kabaka.
Sources told the Independent that when Museveni met the Kabaka in April, the President advised the Buganda to settle the issue to avoid the embarrassment of the Kabaka being summoned to court.
Prime Minister Ruhakana Rugunda later asked the Minister for Lands, Housing and Urban Development; Betty Amongi, to investigate issues of the issue. Amongi on May 17 wrote to Mengo querying the Kyapa mu Ngalo scheme.
She asked for an explanation of how Buganda Land Board, “being a privately registered company solely owned by the Kabaka can manage land belonging to a cultural institution?”
She also stated that, in her view, the scheme could be in conflict with Article 237 (8) of the Constitution and Section 31 (1) of the Land Law which offer security of occupancy on the land to lawful or bona fide occupants of land. She demanded guarantees that current bona fide occupants of land who become lessees under the scheme will not lose their land to the Kabaka after the expiry of the lease. Under the law, if a land lease is not renewed, the land and all immovable developments; including houses and farms, revert to the lessor – in this case, the Kabaka.
She also later wrote to public institutions and local governments occupying Buganda kingdom land stopping them from paying ‘exorbitant’ ground rent which had been demanded by BLB.
Under pressure, the kingdom has declared the leasing exercise to be voluntary, cut down the required fees, and launched a massive public relations campaign.
The PR blitz has involved publicly naming prominent Baganda who have acquired lease titles including Dr. Margaret Bukenya (wife to former Vice President Prof. Gilbert Bukenya), Evaristo Kayondo the Chairman of Kampala City Traders Association (KACITA) and Msgr Expedito Magembe of Mt Sion Prayer Centre at Bukalango. It has also released pictures on social media of what it says are lease application forms for two anti-lease scheme crusaders. The point is that those fighting the scheme have other intentions since they are quietly acquiring them. Mabirizi also told The Independent that Mengo had, through his Kkobe clan chief Namwama Kizito Mulumba, tried to get him to withdraw his case.
“I am the legal advisor of my clan and Mengo tried to use my clan head to make me withdraw my court case but I refused,” he said.
Mengo has also recently appointed BLB Legal Manager Dennis Bugaya to also act as PRO of the BLB instead of David Kiwalabye Male, who heads the body. Bugaya is seen as approachable, calm, and available to the point of returning calls.
Bugaya links up with Dennis Jjuuko – another Mengo diehard and journalist who manages Mayiga’s social media, to defend the Ekyapa scheme.
A pro-Mengo online publication ‘The Spear News’ also reported that Kabaka had recalled his two “big guns”’ the motor-mouthed Mukono Municipality MP, Betty Nambooze and lawyer and Busiro East MP Lubega Medard Sseggona. Using the Buganda kingdom radio channels and the BBS TV station, the duo has been defending the scheme.
“In Buganda the Kabaka is referred to as Ssaabataka which means owner of the land whereas the clan heads are known as ‘abataka’ which is not the case in other regions,” Nambooze MP said in one of the talk shows on CBS radio.
She said only a federal arrangement, where each region has its own land laws, can solve the major raging land wrangles in Bunyoro and in Apaa where the Madi and Acholi are fighting each other over a game reserve.
“Before Amongi talks of Kabaka’s 350 square miles let her explain who is occupying the 9000 square miles. We know that many government officials and some of them now foreigners shared out huge chunks of this land but nobody in government talks about it,” Nambooze said on one of the talk shows. She accused President Museveni of using the same oppressive laws to subdue Buganda like the late former President Milton Obote did after attacking Kabaka Edward Muteesa’s palace in 1966 forcing the latter to flee into exile where he died. In an ironical twist, Amongi; who is seen as a thorn in Buganda’s side, is a wife to the son of the late Obote.
Perhaps aware of the sad history, the Kabaka while attending a schools’ cultural gala in Ntwetwe, Mubende District on June 16 publicly rebuked BLB and ordered it to explain more to the people about land issues. The statement was seen as a gesture of his unhappiness with the handling of the scheme.
“Buganda Kingdom Prime Minister, Katikkiro Charles Peter Mayiga could be punished with a sacking over court cases over land involving his boss, the Kabaka Ronald Muwenda Mutebi 11.” I do not know whether “The Independent” is facing “desperate times”, but there is “unity to desperate events” in this story. There is an “imaginary connexion” between the position of the Katikkiro and that of the emerging court cases that cannot be substantiated with facts. I would like to dispel any false hope from that of this writer to any of the anxious reader, that the Kabaka of Buganda can’t and will not “punish” or “sack” the Katikkiro of Buganda over court cases that are not of his natural or professional cause. These are machinations and in furtherance of the hate campaign against the Great Kingdom of Buganda by ignoramuses. The idea is that, any deterrence in the progression of the Kingdom will somehow ignite their rather whittling political hopes. I will, for instances of clarity, take a long look at history for a rather logical conclusion from the reader. I will look at the circum-stances of the pre-colonial Buganda to the independence. In particular, the 1900 Buganda Agree-ment and the 1961 Buganda Agreement in accordance to the draft of the 1962 Independence Con-stitution, the 1995 Constitution and the “Ramifications of ‘E’ kyapa mu ngalo.”
At the advent of colonialism, Buganda had a feudalistic arrangement on land. The Kingdom was arranged through a clustered clan system- at the lowest level was the family (Amaka). Since Buganda is a patriarchal society, the family was headed by a man (father). From the ‘Amaka’ next came in the ‘Olunyiriri’ ( these could be two or more closely related families), in next came ‘Omutuba’ (a larger union of close families), then, ‘Esiga’ (a large union of loosely related families) and then came in ‘Omutakka’ (Clan Head) and lastly, the ‘Ssaabatakka’ (the Kabaka). At a close look of this hierarchical ladder, there is a “relative linkage” between every Muganda and the Kabaka. The Buganda clan- family system creates a strong social bondage between every Muganda and the Kabaka. But for purposes of this comment, I will restrict this discussion to issues regarding land. By his very title “Ssaabatakka”, all land belonged to the Kabaka but to an extent this was only in title (by name). It is true that the Kabaka owned huge chunks of land and he could allocate it according to his wishes but it is also true that every family in Buganda owned a home (Amaka). A man in Buganda held his family on a piece of land (ttaka) whereupon they could cultivate, parcel it out to his grown up children and pass on “ownership” upon his death. This system of “Amaka” is what led to the Buganda social system that starts with “Amaka” and ends with a “Ssaabatakka” (Kabaka) – it is a “bottom – up” social order. How did Buganda relate to the outside world? Buganda had an aggressive expansionist policy mostly at the detriment of its neighbours. The lands and peoples that were annexed, were normally “co-opted” into the social standing order of the clan system. This fact of life makes Buganda not just a single tribe but rather a nation.
Buganda was declared a “British Protectorate” in 1893. It is only ironical that the “protectors” de-posed Kabaka Mwanga only four years later in 1897. In 1900 the colonialists made their intentions very clear under the 1900 Buganda Agreement. They entered into an “agreement” with an infant “King” of three years. The opponents of Buganda’s aspiration pounce on this infamous event like the proverbial vultures. They so much accuse of the Kingdom for having entered an unfair “agreement” and conspicuously “absolve” the mastermind. Incredible. In 1904 the colonialists introduced the cash economy by introducing two cash crops, that is- Cotton and coffee. The emergency of a cash economy brought in a capitalistic element of “individualism.” The “strong” landlords would coerce people to work in their gardens for profit maximisation. Similarly, the “lazy” landlords could give away their lands at a fee for others to till but not to own. These two compelling forces of a strong landlord wanting “more” and a lazy landlord getting “something”, led to what we now know as ‘Kibanja’ (singularity) or ‘Bibanja’ (plurality). For easy reference, let me dwell upon what transpired in the 1900 Agreement. Sir Harry Johnston, represented Her Majesty’s government as Special Commissioner in Uganda and the Kabaka was represented by regents (Stanislus Mugwanya, Zakaria Kisingiri and Apollo Kaggwa, and Chiefs of Buganda. By the stroke of a pen Her Majesty’s Government (Protectorate) acquired one-half of all the land in Buganda (10,550 sq. Miles and came to be known as ‘Crown land’). The other category was ‘Mailo’ it had two sub divisions. It stated of an “Official Mailo.” These were grants of land attached to specific offices in the Buganda Local Government. They could neither be sub-divided or sold and instead passed intact from the original land holder to his successor. This includes the famous 350sq miles of the Kabaka. This is land that was given to Daudi Chwa who passed it to Edward Mutesa who passed it on to Ronald Mutebi and who will pass it on to his official successor. The other sub category was “Private Mailo.” In these estates, some 1000 chiefs and private land owners were allocated 8,000 square miles of land. The Private Mailo land owner held rights in his land akin to those of a free hold. He was free to sell all or part of his holding and to pass it to his successors either under customary inheritance procedures or through a will. It should be noted that this agreement was originally called ‘The 1900 Uganda Agreement’ but it was later renamed ‘The 1900 Buganda Agreement’ simply because all matters pertaining therein, concerned a particular region called Buganda. The “Agreement” did not only delimit the powers of the Kabaka but it fundamentally delineated the social relations of the people of Buganda. Kabaka’s word on land was no longer final. He was now being restricted to 350sq miles of which he only held in trust. The Omutaka (clan head) could sell or give away his clans mates’ land at his own pleasure. The socio-political and economic functioning and outlook of Buganda had completely changed. The customary ownership of land in Buganda had been greatly eroded. It was now everyman for himself. At this point, let us remember four things: 1) Buganda had lost one-half of its land to the Protectorate government (under crown land). 2) The Kabaka was now limited to 350sq miles and if he needed more, it meant that he had to buy it. 3) That the livelihood of the Baganda now depended on the mercy of the “client-chiefs.” and 4) With the introduction of the cash economy the customary land tenure system was interrupted and by implication brought about two classes of people- the landlords and the landless. To argue, as to what might have brought us thus far, may not be a matter of fact but one of analysis.
With the acrimonious environment of the Bibanja (leasehold), the colonial government came up with the Envujjo & Busuulu law (1928). It was enacted as a result of complaints from tenants over the land lord’s increase in the rate of busuulu and envujjo (rent) payable. Under this law, the rates were standardised and restricted and the peasants could not be forced off their bibanja without an order of Court. Fast forward. In October, 1961, one year before the attainment of the Uganda independence, there was an agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the Buganda Government. It decided to recommend among other things that the new constitution should be established for Uganda under which Uganda would enjoy internal self- government and “Buganda would be united with the rest of Uganda in a federal relationship.” It is noteworthy that Buganda had refused to join the Lancaster Conference unless it was granted a federal status. This was being helped by the fact that Her Majesty’s Government was to grant Uganda “Independence” only if all the concerned parties were on the table. This is how the UPC and Dr. Milton Obote became the first government and Executive Prime Minister respectively. The 1961 Agreement went further and spelled out the relationship between Crown land in Buganda and Public land of the Kabaka’s Government. In Clause 19 – (1) said in part: “The freehold of Crown land in Buganda occupied by the Uganda Government for its own purposes shall be vested in a Commission for public land (hereinafter called “the Uganda Land Commission”), which shall hold land on behalf of the Uganda government for the benefit of all people of Uganda (including the people of Buganda). Clause 19 – (3), stated: “There shall be a land Board for Buganda (hereinafter referred to as “Buganda Land Board”), in which shall be vested all public land of the Kabaka’s Government; the Board shall hold such land in the name of the Kabaka on behalf of and for the benefit of the people of Buganda.” This among other provisions of the Agreement are the factors that assured Buganda’s participation at the Lancaster Conference. It is absurd that Buganda was “cheated out” of the Uganda Independence arrangement. Four years into “self governance”, then Prime Minister, Obote ousted the President. He later abolished Buganda Kingdom alongside other Kingdoms through the Pigeon-hole constitution that was later to become the “Republic Constitution (1967). In 1993, under the “THE TRADITIONAL RULERS- RESTITUTION OF ASSETS AND PROPERTIES ACT (Chapter 247), the NRM Government promised to return all assets that had been confiscated by previous governments. In many aspects, this was another “Buganda Agreement” with a more less “Protectorate government.” It is widely believed that by this gesture of “returning Buganda’s assets”, the NRM government was simply fulfilling its “bush promise” of the “federo” type of governance. If this were the case, then the NRM government couldn’t be further from the truth. Under the “federo” arrangement, Buganda is not only clamouring for “land titles”, it is agitating for a semi- autonomous rule under the Kabaka with a defined territorial sphere, judicial, legislative and Budgetary powers. A similar arrangement as arrived at the Lancaster Conference.
Under the 1995 Constitution, (Article 234), spells out four types of land ownership in Uganda. Clause 2(b) is about Mailo land and it states: “Mailo;This was created by the 1900 Buganda Agreement. It is owning of land formerly given to the Buganda chiefs in and outside Buganda. It is similar to freehold tenure except that tenants on mailo land have security of tenure.” It talks of tenants on Mailo land should possess security of tenure. Implying that there should be an instrument expressing the same. Clause 2(d) is about Leasehold and it states: Leasehold; “This Is owning of an interest in land based on an agreement with the owner of the land al-lowing another person to take possession and use the land to the exclusion of any one else for a specified or limited period of time, usually five years, forty nine years or ninety nine years, on payment of money or giving service. When one dies, the successor takes over the lease.” The 1995 Constitution, under Article (246) recognises the Kabaka as an institution. Specifically Clause 3(a) states: “the institution of traditional or cultural leader shall have capacity to sue or be suedand to hold property on behalf of itself and the people concerned;” The explanation is: the Ugandan constitution recognises the Kabaka as the “custodian” of the 350sq miles. It goes on and give him execution powers and ways to execute. Ekyapa mu ngalo just fulfils this “Constitutional path.” There are tenants on Kabaka’s official Mailo land. How else would Mengo (Buganda’s seat) “ensure” their tenancy? The animosity that the Central Government expressed towards the exercise of ‘E’kyapa mu ngalo’ is either out of lack of proper information or sheer bad blood towards Mengo. But we’re a people with a common heritage and a common purpose. We shall not be derailed by opportunists, not by hate, not by intrigue or greed. We shall try to seek for love and respect from mutual friends. We shall remain true to our cultural values and heritage. We shall not weaver even when in a hole of the storm. We shall build bridges where there gaps. We shall make pathways when faced with brick walls. We shall say “yes” to the “naysayers.” We shall remain true to the “Buganda cause” and the fight starts with me. Onee can only be grateful to Katikkiro Charles Peter Mayiga for giving us that belief and it can’t begin with a “sacking.”
Wow! I ain’t a muganda but I feel the deep sense of belonging from Mr Rajab. I am certainly not competent to discuss buganda but I admire your zeal of defending what you strongly believe in. I wish we all fought for Uganda as a whole the same way.
If we all believe that Buganda is part of Uganda then my sense of belonging can’t be any different from yours. Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.