Why CA delegates rejected Luganda as a national language

_________________

The Constituent Assembly (CA) debate on the country’s national language was not only passionate, it was also emotional.

Delegates spoke with emotion, drawing from history, culture, and regional politics, as they tried to decide which language should unite the country and guide its future.

At the centre of the debate was the choice between English, Kiswahili, and Luganda. Each language carried its own meaning.

English was already the official language of government, schools and courts. Kiswahili was the language of East African Community trade and cooperation. Luganda was widely spoken in central Uganda and had many supporters but also many critics.

The strongest voice in favour of Kiswahili came from Busujju County delegate, Abu Mayanja.

Mayanja argued that Uganda could not remain isolated when its neighbours, Kenya and Tanzania, were already using Kiswahili in schools and in public life.

“Kiswahili is the language of East Africa. If Uganda accepts it, we shall be part of the region and not be left behind. This Constitution must look to the future, not just the past,” Mayanja said.

On his part, Prof. Apollo Nsibambi argued that: “We need a practical plan. English will remain important for education and administration, but Kiswahili can give our children an African identity and help us work easily with our neighbours.”

His thoughtful tone won nods from younger delegates who wanted Uganda to embrace regional opportunities. However, Masaka municipality delegate, John Kawanga, rejected Kiswahili, noting that the language was loaded by painful memories of violence.

Kawanga said, “For ordinary Ugandans, Kiswahili is the language of fear, it is remembered with pain, not pride. How then can it unite us?” However, delegates Omwony Ojok and Dr Okullo Epak criticised Kawanga for blaming the bad manners of soldiers on a lovely and uniting language such as Kiswahili.

“A language cannot be blamed for the crimes of those who spoke it,” Ojok said.

“If our neighbours are moving forward with Kiswahili, Uganda should not remain behind. A shared language is a tool of unity,” Epak said.

The debate grew even tenser when some delegates proposed Luganda, saying it could serve as a national language since it was already spoken by millions in central Uganda and urban areas.

In an interview, Mbarara delegate, Dr Miria Matembe, narrated how the Baganda delegates pushed Luganda with pride. One Muganda even stood up and asked: “Is there anyone on earth who doesn’t understand Luganda?” This suggestion, however, immediately met stiff resistance from delegates countrywide.

Other members argued that adopting Luganda would create dangerous divisions. They feared that Buganda’s hegemony would grow uncontrollable, and some even warned that if such dominance were allowed, Buganda might one day attempt to operate like its own state, especially since it sat so close to the capital.

Delegates stressed that a Constitution meant for all Ugandans could not enshrine one kingdom’s language above others. As one member remarked: “This Constitution is for the whole country, not for one kingdom. To choose Luganda would divide us more than it would unite us.”

In the end, the CA settled on a compromise. Delegates agreed that English would remain Uganda’s official language, as it was already deeply rooted in education, administration and the courts.

At the same time, Kiswahili would be promoted gradually, taught in schools and developed in stages for future use. The proposal to make Luganda the national language was dropped after strong opposition and fears of tribal dominance.

This decision was later captured in Article 6 of the Constitution, which reads. “English shall be the official language of Uganda. Kiswahili shall be the second official language to be adopted in accordance with the law.”