Kabaka can’t head a cultural council
Prof. Semakula Kiwanuka is a knowledgeable authority on Buganda history but his defence of two councils for Buganda in The New Vision of November 15 left me perplexed.
Prof. Semakula Kiwanuka is a knowledgeable authority on Buganda history but his defence of two councils for Buganda in The New Vision of November 15 left me perplexed.
Kiwanuka should be the first to know that between 1900 and 1966 the Abataka were invariably at loggerheads with the Kabaka and the new order which was introduced in the wake of the 1900 agreement.
Therefore, a cultural council of Abataka headed by the Kabaka as claimed by Kiwanuka was inconceivable. Whenever the Abataka met collectively, the aim was to take on the Kabaka and the system.
The cause of this rift was that the Abataka were marginalised in the allocation of land under that agreement and their social ascendancy was overtaken by the chiefs. This led James Miti Kabazzi and Daudi Basudde to form the Baganda Bataka Party with a demand to revert to the status quo existing prior to 1900.
The grievances were so grave that the then Governor on April 10, 1924, appointed a commission to look into the matter and recommend a course of action. However, for the next 20 years nothing happened.
Because of this inaction on the part of the authorities in 1945 the Abataka were forced to be in the forefront of the agitation which led to the general strike which was declared on January 11, 1945, in which the Katikkiro, Martin Luther Nsibirwa, was assassinated and through their paper, Omunyonyozi demanded changes in the administration of the Kingdom.
In 1949, the Abataka published another newspaper Emambya Esaze (The dawn has come) which targeted the chiefs and the system calling for support of Abazzukulu (grand-children) “in the difficult days to come ...†and at a public rally at the Kabaka’s lake on April, 1949, they made the following demands to the Kabaka:
l The people wanted to elect their chiefs.
lThe number of elected representatives to the Lukiiko be raised to 60.
l The government must resign.
lGrowers must gin their cotton.
I mention all this to dispute Kiwanuka’s statement justifying the idea of the two councils that “The Olukiiko lw’Abataka is theoretically the Kabaka’s Council and is chaired by the Kabaka as Ssabataka.†The Kabaka could not be chairman of a council of people who were jabbing at him all the time and the bottom line is that there was no such cultural council.
Secondly, the Kabaka is not called Ssabataka because of his chairing of Abataka cultural council, which is not there anyway. He is called so because traditionally all land is vested in him. It is from him that all other interests emanate including the ancestral lands headed by Abataka.
The other reason is that since Buganda’s cultural life revolves around land, for example, obutaka (ancestral land), obusika (inheritance of land), obusenze (licence to use land) there had to be a final fountain of justice to settle disputes and that fountain is Ssabataka, not the Kabaka, the latter title being given to the sovereign of the Kingdom in the political sense.
It is true that in 1986 meetings of the Abataka in a positive mould emerged and were instrumental in negotiating the restoration of the Kingdom but that does not constitute them into a cultural council. The chairmen Kiwanuka refers to have all been chairmen of these meetings which started after 1986.
Lastly, Kiwanuka justified the idea of a cultural council as the best way of insulating traditional rulers from politics. It must be remembered however that there is a distinction between a cultural leader and a traditional ruler. A clan head is a cultural leader but a traditional ruler (King) is not. Therefore the Kabaka cannot be chairman of a cultural council.
Kiwanuka himself aptly brought out this point in a paper he presented at a seminar at the Sheraton Hotel on October 16, 1994 when he said:
“Others have argued and are advocating for a traditional ruler who is purely cultural. What does that mean? Should the Omukama only preside over funerals when the people he leads are being decimated by disease, hunger and alcohol?
Should he simply stand by and watch lest he is accused of dabbling in politics?... it is unfair for any group of people to assume that only they have the political sense to keep within the boundaries of the law....
The Kabaka of Buganda should have a Buganda with defined boundaries so that he does not find himself wandering in Nyabushozi thinking that he was in Buganda.†Has Kiwanuka now departed from that position?
The writer is a`
lawyer in Kampala
Kiwanuka should be the first to know that between 1900 and 1966 the Abataka were invariably at loggerheads with the Kabaka and the new order which was introduced in the wake of the 1900 agreement.
Therefore, a cultural council of Abataka headed by the Kabaka as claimed by Kiwanuka was inconceivable. Whenever the Abataka met collectively, the aim was to take on the Kabaka and the system.
The cause of this rift was that the Abataka were marginalised in the allocation of land under that agreement and their social ascendancy was overtaken by the chiefs. This led James Miti Kabazzi and Daudi Basudde to form the Baganda Bataka Party with a demand to revert to the status quo existing prior to 1900.
The grievances were so grave that the then Governor on April 10, 1924, appointed a commission to look into the matter and recommend a course of action. However, for the next 20 years nothing happened.
Because of this inaction on the part of the authorities in 1945 the Abataka were forced to be in the forefront of the agitation which led to the general strike which was declared on January 11, 1945, in which the Katikkiro, Martin Luther Nsibirwa, was assassinated and through their paper, Omunyonyozi demanded changes in the administration of the Kingdom.
In 1949, the Abataka published another newspaper Emambya Esaze (The dawn has come) which targeted the chiefs and the system calling for support of Abazzukulu (grand-children) “in the difficult days to come ...†and at a public rally at the Kabaka’s lake on April, 1949, they made the following demands to the Kabaka:
l The people wanted to elect their chiefs.
lThe number of elected representatives to the Lukiiko be raised to 60.
l The government must resign.
lGrowers must gin their cotton.
I mention all this to dispute Kiwanuka’s statement justifying the idea of the two councils that “The Olukiiko lw’Abataka is theoretically the Kabaka’s Council and is chaired by the Kabaka as Ssabataka.†The Kabaka could not be chairman of a council of people who were jabbing at him all the time and the bottom line is that there was no such cultural council.
Secondly, the Kabaka is not called Ssabataka because of his chairing of Abataka cultural council, which is not there anyway. He is called so because traditionally all land is vested in him. It is from him that all other interests emanate including the ancestral lands headed by Abataka.
The other reason is that since Buganda’s cultural life revolves around land, for example, obutaka (ancestral land), obusika (inheritance of land), obusenze (licence to use land) there had to be a final fountain of justice to settle disputes and that fountain is Ssabataka, not the Kabaka, the latter title being given to the sovereign of the Kingdom in the political sense.
It is true that in 1986 meetings of the Abataka in a positive mould emerged and were instrumental in negotiating the restoration of the Kingdom but that does not constitute them into a cultural council. The chairmen Kiwanuka refers to have all been chairmen of these meetings which started after 1986.
Lastly, Kiwanuka justified the idea of a cultural council as the best way of insulating traditional rulers from politics. It must be remembered however that there is a distinction between a cultural leader and a traditional ruler. A clan head is a cultural leader but a traditional ruler (King) is not. Therefore the Kabaka cannot be chairman of a cultural council.
Kiwanuka himself aptly brought out this point in a paper he presented at a seminar at the Sheraton Hotel on October 16, 1994 when he said:
“Others have argued and are advocating for a traditional ruler who is purely cultural. What does that mean? Should the Omukama only preside over funerals when the people he leads are being decimated by disease, hunger and alcohol?
Should he simply stand by and watch lest he is accused of dabbling in politics?... it is unfair for any group of people to assume that only they have the political sense to keep within the boundaries of the law....
The Kabaka of Buganda should have a Buganda with defined boundaries so that he does not find himself wandering in Nyabushozi thinking that he was in Buganda.†Has Kiwanuka now departed from that position?
The writer is a`
lawyer in Kampala