Tooro: Succession questions that need answers
If Oyo did leave a Will and had a son, as claimed by his family, then questions arise about why that succession route was not followed and why the alleged son was not announced as successor. Did Oyo subvert the tradition by not making his son known? Or is there no son?, writes David Mukholi.
David Mukholi. (File)
____________
OPINION
On Tuesday, Edward Rukidi Nyabongo I will succeed the late Omukama Oyo Nyimba Kabamba Iguru Rukidi IV as the 14th Omukama of Tooro. In keeping with Tooro customs and traditions, there must always be an Omukama.
The succession, however, has exposed an issue that goes beyond the identity of the next king: how clearly Tooro’s succession traditions are documented, interpreted and protected when competing claims arise.
Some Batooro were unhappy that the 21-member royal selection committee chose Oyo’s successor before his burial. However, Tooro traditions provide for succession as part of the rituals surrounding the death of an Omukama. These long-held traditions have been passed down through generations and underpin the survival and governance of the kingdom.
The tradition provides that a successor must come from the royal lineage and that the Babiito are the ruling clan of Tooro. But some argue that being a prince does not necessarily qualify one to become Omukama.
Fundamental questions have emerged following Oyo’s death and the rise of Nyabongo I. Who has the authority to select the next king? Is it the Babiito clan, through the royal selection committee, or can a king determine his successor through a Will? The issue is complicated by the succession history of the kingdom.
In his Will, George David Kamurasi Rukidi III named his son David Matthew Kaboyo as first in the line of succession, followed by Kaboyo’s “sons and successors”. Other sons named were George Desmond Mugenyi, Christopher Paul Kijanangoma and Stephen Edgar Paul Karamagi. Kaboyo subsequently became the 12th Omukama and Oyo the 13th.
Oyo is also reported to have left a Will stating that, if he had a surviving son, that son would succeed him. In the absence of a son, Prince Yoweri Komwiswa would succeed him, followed by Prince Solomon Nyaika.
If Oyo did leave a Will and had a son, as claimed by his family, then questions arise about why that succession route was not followed and why the alleged son was not announced as successor. Did Oyo subvert the tradition by not making his son known? Or is there no son?
There is an instructive comparison in the history of the British monarchy.
Britain has a hereditary monarchy. But over the centuries, some traditions governing succession were progressively converted into written law, such as the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.
So, traditions were progressively made clearer in law, reducing uncertainty over who succeeds to the crown.
Tooro is not the British monarchy, and British law does not govern the Tooro throne. But there are lessons, and the relevant starting point is Uganda’s Constitution.
Article 246 recognises traditional and cultural institutions and provides that they may exist in accordance with the culture, customs and traditions, or wishes and aspirations, of the people to whom they apply. It also defines a traditional or cultural leader as a king or similar leader whose allegiance derives from birth or descent in accordance with the customs, traditions, usage or consent of the people led.
The Institution of Traditional or Cultural Leaders Act, 2011 reinforces this position. It provides that a person may be installed as a traditional or cultural leader where allegiance derives from birth or descent in accordance with the customs and traditions of the people concerned. The Act also recognises the institution as a corporation sole with perpetual succession. This is important because the throne is not simply private property belonging to the person who occupies it. It is a continuing institution.
The difficult question, therefore, is whether a sitting Omukama can determine his successor through a Will. A Will ordinarily deals with a person’s estate, including property and assets that the law permits a person to dispose of. The throne is different.
Can a Will determine succession to an institution whose existence and leadership are governed by culture, custom and law?
These questions should ideally have been answered long before the death of an Omukama.
Next week’s coronation and accession of a new Omukama provides Tooro with an opportunity not merely to settle one succession, but to clarify the rules for future generations.
The kingdom already has customs, traditions and institutions governing succession. The issue is whether they are sufficiently clear, accessible and authoritative to answer questions such as: Who selects the Omukama? What is the precise role of the Babiito? What role do other Tooro clans play? Can an Omukama designate his successor? Does a Will have authority over the throne? What happens when a Will conflicts with custom? Who resolves such a dispute?
The British experience demonstrates how a hereditary institution can preserve centuries-old traditions while progressively putting crucial succession rules into law. The crown passes according to established statutory rules; the monarch does not personally choose the next monarch.
Succession follows the descendants of the reigning monarch according to the legally established order. If there are no eligible descendants, succession passes to the next eligible branch of the family under the law. This is why the current line of succession begins with William, George, Charlotte, Louis, Harry and Archie. It is not a list created by King Charles III; it is determined by law.
That is an important historical distinction. Some of Britain’s laws began as customs or conventions. Over time, however, Parliament converted many of the most important principles governing succession into written law.
The lesson for Tooro is not to copy Britain. It is to consider whether its own succession rules should be clearly documented.
Tooro and other traditional institutions in Uganda can similarly use their constitutions and recognised customary systems to codify traditions, clarify succession and reduce uncertainty. The strongest traditions are not necessarily those left unwritten. Sometimes traditions survive precisely because they are clearly defined.
X @dmukholi1 dmukholi@gmail.com