Forgotten heroes of our independence
Feb 25, 2004
<b><small>Who are the heroes in Uganda’s history?</small></b><br>I RECENTLY heard a claim on a radio discussion that one of the reasons for Uganda’s instability since 1962 was that we received our independence on a silver platter meaning that we did not fight for it.
By Peter Mulira
I RECENTLY heard a claim on a radio discussion that one of the reasons for Uganda’s instability since 1962 was that we received our independence on a silver platter meaning that we did not fight for it.
The true position, however, is that our independence came as a result of a conjunction of events whose players were our true heroes for our independence struggle.
These events started with the deportation of the Kabaka of Buganda in 1953 and culminated in the trade boycott which was mounted by the Uganda National Movement in 1958/59.
The deportation was a result of opposition to the proposed East African Federation which would have united Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. One person who stood up for the rights of Africans in Uganda and opposed the creation of the federation along the lines of the Central African federation was the Kabaka of Buganda who in a series of meetings with the Governor, Sir Andrew Cohen, and through a lively exchange of letters the Kabaka refused to change his opposition.
On November 30, 1953, the Governor gave the Kabaka two alternatives: either to sign an agreement of co-operation on the issues or be dethroned and exiled to Britain. The Kabaka chose the latter and was bundled off to London in a plane which was specially waiting at Entebbe Airport for the mission. Penniless and without winter clothing the Kabaka was allowed only one aide to accompany him into exile.
The Kabaka’s deportation was the first catalyst for our independence as it effectively killed the idea of the federation and focused attention on Uganda. It also sparked off various events which led to independence.
First, the shock and sudden deportation for the first time united the people of Uganda who sympathised with a young king who had sacrificed all for the sake of others. There was also a vicarious sense of bravado that the imperial power had been defied.
This reaction shocked the colonial government into anew thinking about the future of the country.
With the country overwhelmingly united behind the Kabaka’s cause which had transformed itself into a Ugandan cause, the delegation of five which was sent by the Lukiiko to London to fight for the Kabaka’s return recorded early successes in galvanising public opinion in its favour.
As early as 15th December 15, 1953, a vote of no confidence in the British Parliament was moved in the Colonial Secretary, Mr Oliver Lyttleton (late Lord Chandos), who was later to describe the delegation as one of the best he had received from the colonies. David Apter in his book The Political Kingdom in Uganda writes of the delegation: “A delegation of Buganda to London made a very good impression everywhere.
The first delegation which had gone to London in an effort to secure the Kabaka’s return not only aroused considerable comment, but made an effort to mount a campaign reminiscent of the one launched by Lugard and the missionaries to get Her Majesty’s government to establish the Protectorate.â€
The second outcome of the Kabaka’s deportation was therefore not only to remove Uganda’s case from the back waters of policy-makers and place it on the front desks of decision-makers. Furthermore, for the first time since Lugard’s days, Uganda became exposed in the public domain of a metropolitan capital.
This gave a tremendous leg-push to our drive towards independence as public opinion was overwhelmingly on our side.
As a direct result of this interest in Uganda, an Oxford don, Margaret Pelha, was aroused to write a letter in The Times of London on February 10, 1954, proposing a small and expert constitutional commission to discuss a new constitution for Buganda. The government bought the idea and the appointment of Prof Sir Keith Hancock, a distinguished constitution scholar and at the time the director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London, testified to the degree of respectability the Uganda case was assuming.
The Hancock report which resulted in the Buganda Constitution of 1955 was a watershed in Uganda’s road to independence because it showed that with reasoned arguments and agreeable manners, everything was possible including independence itself. The third outcome of the deportation was the birth of constitutionalism as the official vehicle to our independence as opposed to armed confrontation.
Lastly, Buganda contested the legality of the deportation itself in the High Court and managed to get a ruling in which the court held that the Governor had no power to take the action he took under clause 6 of the 1900 Agreement, which provision he had used in deporting the Kabaka. The decision raised joyous celebrations at home and, perhaps due to the high profile of the English lawyers who managed it i.e. Sir Dingle Foot and Lord Diplock.
The times On November 5, 1954, the Times editorialised that the Baganda had won a moral victory. The government was now morally broken and from now on the movement of events was independence.
From 1955 onwards, it was settled that Uganda’s independence was inevitable and attention focused on guiding the events which led to it rather than flexing muscles to wrestle it from Britain.
There were three players on the political stage at this time, namely the Buganda Lukiiko, the political parties and African members of the Legislative Council. Each group acted out its part in a different way.
For the Buganda Lukiiko it was important to settle the basis of our relationships as an independent country. Buganda opted for a system which would preserve individual identities of the various communities united under one national flag and pursued this arrangement with great zeal. In this they were supported by Apter who wrote that:-
“In Uganda the condition most appropriate for establishment of a national polity is some form of consociational political system.. for behind the question of Parliamentary forms of association lies the need to create a genuine basis of association of all groups, whether ethnic, racial or class!â€
Whether Buganda was right or not in its posture only history will tell. But the Constitutional Review Commission has recommended some forms of associations similar to what was advocated fifty years ago.
The role of members of the Legco could be divided into tow parts i.e. from the elections of 1954 to those of 1958 and after. From 1954-1958 the chamber contained a large number of UNC members who brought nationalist fervour to the debates. However, Buganda boycotted the elections of 1958 which generated an anti-Buganda stance from members from outside Buganda. Thus the anti-Buganda schism was born and was incarnated in the formation of the Uganda People’s Party. This was compounded by the passing of a resolution by District Secretary generals in 1958 condemning Buganda demand for federalism.
It is difficult to see what role members of Legco played at this last stage for they neither supported the political parties nor agreed with Buganda’s position. It became apparent that Britain was grooming this group through a powerful lady, Barbara Saben who was also a member of the Legco, to inherit the reigns of power.
Barbara Saben is credited with mediating the amalgamation of UPP and Obote’s faction of UNC to form UPC.
The political parties were themselves very active from 1954. They criss-crossed the country demanding self-government now, Africanisation of the civil service, direct elections to the Legco, expansion of the executive council (cabinet) to include more Africans. Most of these demand s were met with the exception of Africanisation of trade and commerce.
In 1958 all the political parties with the exception of UPP and UNC (faction) joined under the umbrella organisation, the Uganda National Movement , and declared a trade boycott which was so successful.
This was the straw which broke the camel’s back for as the effects of the boycott continued to bite the business community urged the government to give in and late in 1959 the government announced a four stage constitutional plan which would lead to independence in 1962.
Meanwhile all the leaders of the movement political parties were rusticated to upcountry centres which cut them off from political activity. It is one of the quacks of history that since 1966 discussion of pre-independence politics is not officially welcome.
Ends
I RECENTLY heard a claim on a radio discussion that one of the reasons for Uganda’s instability since 1962 was that we received our independence on a silver platter meaning that we did not fight for it.
The true position, however, is that our independence came as a result of a conjunction of events whose players were our true heroes for our independence struggle.
These events started with the deportation of the Kabaka of Buganda in 1953 and culminated in the trade boycott which was mounted by the Uganda National Movement in 1958/59.
The deportation was a result of opposition to the proposed East African Federation which would have united Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. One person who stood up for the rights of Africans in Uganda and opposed the creation of the federation along the lines of the Central African federation was the Kabaka of Buganda who in a series of meetings with the Governor, Sir Andrew Cohen, and through a lively exchange of letters the Kabaka refused to change his opposition.
On November 30, 1953, the Governor gave the Kabaka two alternatives: either to sign an agreement of co-operation on the issues or be dethroned and exiled to Britain. The Kabaka chose the latter and was bundled off to London in a plane which was specially waiting at Entebbe Airport for the mission. Penniless and without winter clothing the Kabaka was allowed only one aide to accompany him into exile.
The Kabaka’s deportation was the first catalyst for our independence as it effectively killed the idea of the federation and focused attention on Uganda. It also sparked off various events which led to independence.
First, the shock and sudden deportation for the first time united the people of Uganda who sympathised with a young king who had sacrificed all for the sake of others. There was also a vicarious sense of bravado that the imperial power had been defied.
This reaction shocked the colonial government into anew thinking about the future of the country.
With the country overwhelmingly united behind the Kabaka’s cause which had transformed itself into a Ugandan cause, the delegation of five which was sent by the Lukiiko to London to fight for the Kabaka’s return recorded early successes in galvanising public opinion in its favour.
As early as 15th December 15, 1953, a vote of no confidence in the British Parliament was moved in the Colonial Secretary, Mr Oliver Lyttleton (late Lord Chandos), who was later to describe the delegation as one of the best he had received from the colonies. David Apter in his book The Political Kingdom in Uganda writes of the delegation: “A delegation of Buganda to London made a very good impression everywhere.
The first delegation which had gone to London in an effort to secure the Kabaka’s return not only aroused considerable comment, but made an effort to mount a campaign reminiscent of the one launched by Lugard and the missionaries to get Her Majesty’s government to establish the Protectorate.â€
The second outcome of the Kabaka’s deportation was therefore not only to remove Uganda’s case from the back waters of policy-makers and place it on the front desks of decision-makers. Furthermore, for the first time since Lugard’s days, Uganda became exposed in the public domain of a metropolitan capital.
This gave a tremendous leg-push to our drive towards independence as public opinion was overwhelmingly on our side.
As a direct result of this interest in Uganda, an Oxford don, Margaret Pelha, was aroused to write a letter in The Times of London on February 10, 1954, proposing a small and expert constitutional commission to discuss a new constitution for Buganda. The government bought the idea and the appointment of Prof Sir Keith Hancock, a distinguished constitution scholar and at the time the director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London, testified to the degree of respectability the Uganda case was assuming.
The Hancock report which resulted in the Buganda Constitution of 1955 was a watershed in Uganda’s road to independence because it showed that with reasoned arguments and agreeable manners, everything was possible including independence itself. The third outcome of the deportation was the birth of constitutionalism as the official vehicle to our independence as opposed to armed confrontation.
Lastly, Buganda contested the legality of the deportation itself in the High Court and managed to get a ruling in which the court held that the Governor had no power to take the action he took under clause 6 of the 1900 Agreement, which provision he had used in deporting the Kabaka. The decision raised joyous celebrations at home and, perhaps due to the high profile of the English lawyers who managed it i.e. Sir Dingle Foot and Lord Diplock.
The times On November 5, 1954, the Times editorialised that the Baganda had won a moral victory. The government was now morally broken and from now on the movement of events was independence.
From 1955 onwards, it was settled that Uganda’s independence was inevitable and attention focused on guiding the events which led to it rather than flexing muscles to wrestle it from Britain.
There were three players on the political stage at this time, namely the Buganda Lukiiko, the political parties and African members of the Legislative Council. Each group acted out its part in a different way.
For the Buganda Lukiiko it was important to settle the basis of our relationships as an independent country. Buganda opted for a system which would preserve individual identities of the various communities united under one national flag and pursued this arrangement with great zeal. In this they were supported by Apter who wrote that:-
“In Uganda the condition most appropriate for establishment of a national polity is some form of consociational political system.. for behind the question of Parliamentary forms of association lies the need to create a genuine basis of association of all groups, whether ethnic, racial or class!â€
Whether Buganda was right or not in its posture only history will tell. But the Constitutional Review Commission has recommended some forms of associations similar to what was advocated fifty years ago.
The role of members of the Legco could be divided into tow parts i.e. from the elections of 1954 to those of 1958 and after. From 1954-1958 the chamber contained a large number of UNC members who brought nationalist fervour to the debates. However, Buganda boycotted the elections of 1958 which generated an anti-Buganda stance from members from outside Buganda. Thus the anti-Buganda schism was born and was incarnated in the formation of the Uganda People’s Party. This was compounded by the passing of a resolution by District Secretary generals in 1958 condemning Buganda demand for federalism.
It is difficult to see what role members of Legco played at this last stage for they neither supported the political parties nor agreed with Buganda’s position. It became apparent that Britain was grooming this group through a powerful lady, Barbara Saben who was also a member of the Legco, to inherit the reigns of power.
Barbara Saben is credited with mediating the amalgamation of UPP and Obote’s faction of UNC to form UPC.
The political parties were themselves very active from 1954. They criss-crossed the country demanding self-government now, Africanisation of the civil service, direct elections to the Legco, expansion of the executive council (cabinet) to include more Africans. Most of these demand s were met with the exception of Africanisation of trade and commerce.
In 1958 all the political parties with the exception of UPP and UNC (faction) joined under the umbrella organisation, the Uganda National Movement , and declared a trade boycott which was so successful.
This was the straw which broke the camel’s back for as the effects of the boycott continued to bite the business community urged the government to give in and late in 1959 the government announced a four stage constitutional plan which would lead to independence in 1962.
Meanwhile all the leaders of the movement political parties were rusticated to upcountry centres which cut them off from political activity. It is one of the quacks of history that since 1966 discussion of pre-independence politics is not officially welcome.
Ends