Mayanja, Mulira were not honest
Dec 05, 2004
It has become fashionable in some circles these days to throw intellectual honesty to the winds as long as it is assumed to score points against the Movement and President Yoweri Museveni.
It has become fashionable in some circles these days to throw intellectual honesty to the winds as long as it is assumed to score points against the Movement and President Yoweri Museveni.
Nothing characterised such a development than the two articles on the Councils at Mengo by two prominent Baganda, Abu Mayanja who wrote on November 23 and Peter Mulira on November 25.
In one sense it was good that these two gentlemen exposed the bundle of contradictions and confusion they are trapped in on this subject. Mulira surprised me more because he is intellectually more sound. Here are some of the contradictions strewn all over their articles:
Mayanja rightly acknowledged that Muteesa II gave the old Bulange building to the Bataka as a meeting venue. Surely if the Bataka were not or did not exist as an organised body, why should the Kabaka have given them Lukiiko Hall (Bulange) to meet in? Mulira was unaware of this!
In a lengthy account he factually confused the Bataka Political Party with the Bataka Abobusolya (the clan heads). He should know that Semakula Mulumba, one of the Bataka party leaders was not a clan head (Omutaka). He was a politician. Only one of the eight alleged ring leaders who were prosecuted by the British for organising the 1949 riots was a Mutaka.
Mulira’s lengthy account was supposed to show his mastery of the politics of the period but did not. The leaders of the Bataka Party were politicians. Their demands actually listed by Mulira were political and economic.
Mulira was unfortunately unaware of the emerging power and influence of the Uganda Farmers Union on the politics of the time and the 1950s which influenced the leaders of the riots of 1949. Like any well read Muganda, Mulira should certainly know the different meanings of the word ‘Mutaka’. For example, I am a Mutaka of Tank Hill Muyenga, having lived there since the 1960s. that, however does not mean that I am Omutaka Wakasolya (clan head).
Nevertheless I thank Mulira for unwittingly supporting my case when he acknowledged the tremendous contribution by the Abataka Bobusolya to the negotiations of the transition from Ssabataka to the restoration of the Kabakaship and the coronation of Kabaka Mutebi in 1993. among the prominent negotiators were Omutaka Nadduli Kibaale and Omutaka Grace Ssemakula Ndugwa.
Mulira went to great length to prove that I was contradicting myself or that I had changed like a chameleon. He quoted my seminar paper of 1994. unfortunately he was off target.
In 1994, I demanded the restoration of the word ‘Buganda’ on the map of Uganda. I demanded that Buganda’s boundaries be shown lest the Kabaka might one day wander into Nyabushozi thinking that he was touring his kingdom. I am proud that what I demanded was implemented. But boundaries are totally irrelevant to the current discussions of the two councils and I fail to understand why Mulira referred to them.
My choice of words was clear. Theoretically the Kabaka is the chair of Olukiiko Lwabataka. If both Mulira and Mayanja argue that the Kabaka is not cultural, they should explain why every death and succession of a clan head is reported to him and why he (invariably meaning his representative) confirms the heirs to the Bataka.
Both writers must explain the role of the Katikkiro Womuddiro and on whose behalf such a Katikkiro undertakes his duties.
If culturally the Kabaka was totally divorced from the Bataka as Mulira argues, the death and succession to such men would not be reported to him. For this reason, Mulira’s definition of Sabataka which excludes the Kabaka’s cultural role is false. I detected the same lack of intellectual honesty by both men when they ignored the cultural significance of Article 246 of the 1995 Constitution. It was carefully drafted and refers to “the institution of traditional or cultural leaders.†The Luganda translation of the same Article refers to “Obufuzi bwebyo buwangwa†What does it mean if it is not cultural?
I shall end with a challenge and an appeal. I challenge Mulira, Mayanja and all those who oppose the two councils to prove to the Baganda and to the Members of Parliament that Abataka such as Ndugwa, Nadduli Kibaale and their fellow clan heads are dangerous or would be a danger to the institution of the Kabakaship in which they are the principal stakeholder if they sat in their own Lukiiko.
Finally I appeal to Mulira and Mayanja to rise above the level of today’s anti- Movement propagandists and ‘Bimezaists’ not to distort facts such as Mayanja’s denial that the current Lukiiko is political.
Ends
Nothing characterised such a development than the two articles on the Councils at Mengo by two prominent Baganda, Abu Mayanja who wrote on November 23 and Peter Mulira on November 25.
In one sense it was good that these two gentlemen exposed the bundle of contradictions and confusion they are trapped in on this subject. Mulira surprised me more because he is intellectually more sound. Here are some of the contradictions strewn all over their articles:
Mayanja rightly acknowledged that Muteesa II gave the old Bulange building to the Bataka as a meeting venue. Surely if the Bataka were not or did not exist as an organised body, why should the Kabaka have given them Lukiiko Hall (Bulange) to meet in? Mulira was unaware of this!
In a lengthy account he factually confused the Bataka Political Party with the Bataka Abobusolya (the clan heads). He should know that Semakula Mulumba, one of the Bataka party leaders was not a clan head (Omutaka). He was a politician. Only one of the eight alleged ring leaders who were prosecuted by the British for organising the 1949 riots was a Mutaka.
Mulira’s lengthy account was supposed to show his mastery of the politics of the period but did not. The leaders of the Bataka Party were politicians. Their demands actually listed by Mulira were political and economic.
Mulira was unfortunately unaware of the emerging power and influence of the Uganda Farmers Union on the politics of the time and the 1950s which influenced the leaders of the riots of 1949. Like any well read Muganda, Mulira should certainly know the different meanings of the word ‘Mutaka’. For example, I am a Mutaka of Tank Hill Muyenga, having lived there since the 1960s. that, however does not mean that I am Omutaka Wakasolya (clan head).
Nevertheless I thank Mulira for unwittingly supporting my case when he acknowledged the tremendous contribution by the Abataka Bobusolya to the negotiations of the transition from Ssabataka to the restoration of the Kabakaship and the coronation of Kabaka Mutebi in 1993. among the prominent negotiators were Omutaka Nadduli Kibaale and Omutaka Grace Ssemakula Ndugwa.
Mulira went to great length to prove that I was contradicting myself or that I had changed like a chameleon. He quoted my seminar paper of 1994. unfortunately he was off target.
In 1994, I demanded the restoration of the word ‘Buganda’ on the map of Uganda. I demanded that Buganda’s boundaries be shown lest the Kabaka might one day wander into Nyabushozi thinking that he was touring his kingdom. I am proud that what I demanded was implemented. But boundaries are totally irrelevant to the current discussions of the two councils and I fail to understand why Mulira referred to them.
My choice of words was clear. Theoretically the Kabaka is the chair of Olukiiko Lwabataka. If both Mulira and Mayanja argue that the Kabaka is not cultural, they should explain why every death and succession of a clan head is reported to him and why he (invariably meaning his representative) confirms the heirs to the Bataka.
Both writers must explain the role of the Katikkiro Womuddiro and on whose behalf such a Katikkiro undertakes his duties.
If culturally the Kabaka was totally divorced from the Bataka as Mulira argues, the death and succession to such men would not be reported to him. For this reason, Mulira’s definition of Sabataka which excludes the Kabaka’s cultural role is false. I detected the same lack of intellectual honesty by both men when they ignored the cultural significance of Article 246 of the 1995 Constitution. It was carefully drafted and refers to “the institution of traditional or cultural leaders.†The Luganda translation of the same Article refers to “Obufuzi bwebyo buwangwa†What does it mean if it is not cultural?
I shall end with a challenge and an appeal. I challenge Mulira, Mayanja and all those who oppose the two councils to prove to the Baganda and to the Members of Parliament that Abataka such as Ndugwa, Nadduli Kibaale and their fellow clan heads are dangerous or would be a danger to the institution of the Kabakaship in which they are the principal stakeholder if they sat in their own Lukiiko.
Finally I appeal to Mulira and Mayanja to rise above the level of today’s anti- Movement propagandists and ‘Bimezaists’ not to distort facts such as Mayanja’s denial that the current Lukiiko is political.
Ends