Why CA delegates opposed state funding of kingdoms

_________________

The debate on restored kingdoms was largely two-fold — their political autonomy under the new 1995 Constitution and what role they would have in a modern Uganda under the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM).

However, these two perspectives also brought in a third element as the Constituent Assembly (CA) delegates debated one of the most emotional and widely discussed issues during the constitution-making process.

While the restoration of cultural institutions in 1993 had been celebrated, many delegates worried about the financial and political implications of supporting monarchs with public funds.

The kingdoms, which had been abolished in 1967, some delegates argued, should be directly funded by the Government. Others opposed the funding proposal, noting that they would add an unnecessary financial burden to the state.

In fact, most delegates opposed the Government’s continued financing of traditional rulers, particularly through the provision of vehicles and the covering of foreign travel expenses.

The debate followed President Yoweri Museveni’s donations of cars to restored monarchs in Buganda, Bunyoro and Toro, as well as government’s practice of renting vehicles for these rulers from the Uganda International Conference Centre.

Kibale County delegate, Jackson Hashaka, was blunt in his rejection of state responsibility for kings.

“Traditional rulers should not be a burden on society and, therefore, should be self-sustaining. I wonder why government should give kings Pajeros and even fund their foreign travel. This should not be accepted,” Hashaka. Bukanga county delegate, Frank Guma, echoed similar sentiments, insisting that anyone aspiring to a throne should be prepared to fi nance his own lifestyle.

“If I want to be a king, and need a jet, I should not bother others. I don’t see why my father should pay for the welfare of kings,” Guma.

Adding another dimension, Kashaari County delegate, Urban Tibamanya, argued that the law itself needed to empower citizens to remove traditional rulers if the people so wished.

He pointed out that the existing law was silent on mechanisms for dethronement, thereby leaving cultural institutions insulated from popular accountability.

Lira municipality delegate Cecilia Ogwal also warned against state funding of kings. She argued that Uganda was struggling with poverty, poor roads, schools and health services, and could not afford to “sponsor royalty while the ordinary citizens sleep hungry”.

Masaka municipality delegate John Kawanga, while acknowledging the cultural importance of monarchies, reminded the assembly that the new Constitution had to prioritise the equality of all Ugandans. He said if the state funds kings, it would be discriminating against regions without monarchies.

Prof. Yoweri Kyesimira was even more acidic. He said kings had symbolic and cultural value, but taxpayers should not be forced to maintain them.

“Let those who love their kings support them voluntarily,” Kyesimira noted.

On his part, Eriya Kategaya argued that monarchies should remain purely cultural institutions, free from state interference and dependency.

He noted that funding them from the public purse would re-politicise kingdoms.

Adonia Tiberondwa added that the country’s fragile unity could be endangered if certain groups received special privileges while others did not.

At the end of the debate, the majority of the delegates stood firm that kings and traditional leaders should be recognised but not bankrolled by the Government.

This principle found its way into Article 246 of the 1995 Constitution, which recognises traditional institutions as purely cultural and leaves their maintenance to voluntary support from their subjects.

However, over the years, the Government has set a precedent of giving traditional leaders vehicles, arguing that the gesture is meant to ease the transport of these great pillars of society.