Why is Kiwanuka’s thesis of discrimination selective?
Jan 23, 2006
A learned friend With a historical perspective<br><br><b>Peter Mulira Mayanja</b><br><br>Professor Semakula Kiwanuka’s article “Katikkiro slot not for catholics!â€published on January 18 is misleading and sectarian. He accuses me of impropriety for raising the issue of religious prejudice i
A learned friend With a historical perspective
Peter Mulira Mayanja
Professor Semakula Kiwanuka’s article “Katikkiro slot not for catholics!â€published on January 18 is misleading and sectarian. He accuses me of impropriety for raising the issue of religious prejudice in my earlier article.
According to one dictionary meaning, prejudice means “forming an opinion or judgement without examinationâ€. It is precisely because of this and not because I am prejudiced myself that I decided to examine the basis of religious prejudice in my article in your issue of January 10, which was the subject of Kiwanuka’s rejoinder.
Kiwanuka does not refute the main thesis in my article that according to the settlement reached by Christians — catholics and protestants following their victory over the muslims in the religious wars, Buganda’s governance was divided into two departments of equal status, namely the administration and the judiciary which were shared between catholics and protestants the catholics taking the judicial slot headed by Omulamuzi or chief judge and the protestants heading the administrative branch with the Katikkiro at the top. That is why there was no catholic Katikkiro or protestant Omulamuzi between 1892 and 1955.
How can Kiwanuka talk about discrimination in the appointment of Katikkiro without talking about discrimination in the appointment of Omulamuzi?
Likewise, headship of the 20 counties of Buganda were divided between the three religions so that, for example, during the period under review there was never a Pokino or head of Buddu county who was not a catholic or a Ssekiboobo or head of Kyaggwe county who was not a protestant.
The civil service at Mengo was similarly divided so that a catholic would only be employed in the judiciary and the protestant in the administration. The only people who were discriminated against by the arrogance of victory of both the catholics and protestants were the muslims. Kiwanuka’s claim that there was no catholic Katikkiro between 1892 and 1994 when Joseph Mulwanyamuli Ssemwogerere was appointed due to the vision of people like him (he does not credit the Kabaka for the initiative) is also fallacious.
From 1955, the election of the Katikkiro was by the Lukiiko which contained according to reports a majority of catholics. In 1955, Matayo Mugwanya, a catholic, lost to Kintu by three votes. If the six or so catholic saza chiefs had been sectarian and voted for Mugwanya on account of religion, he would have won by 43 votes to Kintu’s 34. There were two subsequent elections before the troubles of 1966 in which no catholic candidate offered himself. How can Kiwanuka blame Mugwanya’s loss to Kintu and the lack of catholic candidates on protestants?
The case of Father Ssebayigga is different and isolated. This incident happened during the heat preceding the elections of 1961 which Kabaka Yekka boycotted but DP decided to participate in.
Father Ssebayigga issued a pastoral letter during the absence of his Bishop in Europe in which he is alleged to have sided with DP’s position. What happened next was very unfortunate but personal between Mutesa and Ssebayigga. It is even more disturbing for some people like Kiwanuka to put this incident in the context of prejudice against catholics.
Kiwanuka pompously berates me for what he calls lying about the election of Katikkiro in 1955 between Michael Kintu and Matayo Mugwanya and boldly claims that the two had tied and Kintu only won after the Kabaka nominated three additional special members and thus Kiwanuka tries to buttress his anti-catholic obsession.
The Kabaka was entitled to only six nominees who were all nominated in 1953 before his deportation and there was only one election which went without a tie.
Although I am prepared to adjust some figures, I stand by what I wrote. The election time-table for the Katikkiro-designate was announced in the Uganda Argus of August 18, 1955. The election under the new constitution was to be on August 22, 1955, and the Governor’s approval of the elected person was to be given on August 23, 1955. The Uganda Argus of August 23, 1955 reported thus; “The Buganda Lukiiko yesterday elected Mr. Michael Kintu, Saza Chief of Singo, as the Katikkiro-designate under the new constitution. He received 40 votes — three more than Matayo Mugwanya……..â€.
I highly respect Professor Kiwanuka but I find it inexcusable that in order to win a sectarian point, a professor of history can manufacture a historical lie that there was a tie between Kintu and Mugwanya which was only broken by the Kabaka who appointed three special members to vote against Mugwanya. The audacity with which Kiwanuka, a Muganda, tells jibs about the Kabaka to the extent of accusing him of having sectarian religious tendencies is amazing. As for me I come from a family whose members have intermingled happily with all people of different religions and Kiwanuka’s outburst against me is inconsequential.
Suffice it to say that my grandfather, Ham Mukasa a protestant, donated free of charge the land on which Kiwanuka’s catholic school, Namiryango College was built.
We should emulate the broad visions of the Ham Mukasas, Stanislas Mugwanyas and Badru Kakungulus of yesteryear rather than the constricted visions of the Kiwanukas of today who scavenge for religious conflicts.
I find it unnecessary to comment on the other points of a personal nature raised by Kiwanuka except his remark about good breeding as taught by his British teachers one of whose aspects is to “know what to say, where to say it or not to say itâ€.
Lloyd George, the first Welsh British prime minister, also advised on etiquette and good breeding in a broad-minded society when in one of his speeches he said, “always have something to say, say it and shut up.†I had the privilege of being taught constitutional law in London by Lloyd George’s ageing former private secretary who used to lapse into telling anecdotes about his boss.
One of the anecdotes I like best was the advice Lloyd George used to give that however provoked personally in a debate, do not answer in kind so that people may be able to distinguish a gentleman from a demagogue.
Peter Mulira Mayanja
Professor Semakula Kiwanuka’s article “Katikkiro slot not for catholics!â€published on January 18 is misleading and sectarian. He accuses me of impropriety for raising the issue of religious prejudice in my earlier article.
According to one dictionary meaning, prejudice means “forming an opinion or judgement without examinationâ€. It is precisely because of this and not because I am prejudiced myself that I decided to examine the basis of religious prejudice in my article in your issue of January 10, which was the subject of Kiwanuka’s rejoinder.
Kiwanuka does not refute the main thesis in my article that according to the settlement reached by Christians — catholics and protestants following their victory over the muslims in the religious wars, Buganda’s governance was divided into two departments of equal status, namely the administration and the judiciary which were shared between catholics and protestants the catholics taking the judicial slot headed by Omulamuzi or chief judge and the protestants heading the administrative branch with the Katikkiro at the top. That is why there was no catholic Katikkiro or protestant Omulamuzi between 1892 and 1955.
How can Kiwanuka talk about discrimination in the appointment of Katikkiro without talking about discrimination in the appointment of Omulamuzi?
Likewise, headship of the 20 counties of Buganda were divided between the three religions so that, for example, during the period under review there was never a Pokino or head of Buddu county who was not a catholic or a Ssekiboobo or head of Kyaggwe county who was not a protestant.
The civil service at Mengo was similarly divided so that a catholic would only be employed in the judiciary and the protestant in the administration. The only people who were discriminated against by the arrogance of victory of both the catholics and protestants were the muslims. Kiwanuka’s claim that there was no catholic Katikkiro between 1892 and 1994 when Joseph Mulwanyamuli Ssemwogerere was appointed due to the vision of people like him (he does not credit the Kabaka for the initiative) is also fallacious.
From 1955, the election of the Katikkiro was by the Lukiiko which contained according to reports a majority of catholics. In 1955, Matayo Mugwanya, a catholic, lost to Kintu by three votes. If the six or so catholic saza chiefs had been sectarian and voted for Mugwanya on account of religion, he would have won by 43 votes to Kintu’s 34. There were two subsequent elections before the troubles of 1966 in which no catholic candidate offered himself. How can Kiwanuka blame Mugwanya’s loss to Kintu and the lack of catholic candidates on protestants?
The case of Father Ssebayigga is different and isolated. This incident happened during the heat preceding the elections of 1961 which Kabaka Yekka boycotted but DP decided to participate in.
Father Ssebayigga issued a pastoral letter during the absence of his Bishop in Europe in which he is alleged to have sided with DP’s position. What happened next was very unfortunate but personal between Mutesa and Ssebayigga. It is even more disturbing for some people like Kiwanuka to put this incident in the context of prejudice against catholics.
Kiwanuka pompously berates me for what he calls lying about the election of Katikkiro in 1955 between Michael Kintu and Matayo Mugwanya and boldly claims that the two had tied and Kintu only won after the Kabaka nominated three additional special members and thus Kiwanuka tries to buttress his anti-catholic obsession.
The Kabaka was entitled to only six nominees who were all nominated in 1953 before his deportation and there was only one election which went without a tie.
Although I am prepared to adjust some figures, I stand by what I wrote. The election time-table for the Katikkiro-designate was announced in the Uganda Argus of August 18, 1955. The election under the new constitution was to be on August 22, 1955, and the Governor’s approval of the elected person was to be given on August 23, 1955. The Uganda Argus of August 23, 1955 reported thus; “The Buganda Lukiiko yesterday elected Mr. Michael Kintu, Saza Chief of Singo, as the Katikkiro-designate under the new constitution. He received 40 votes — three more than Matayo Mugwanya……..â€.
I highly respect Professor Kiwanuka but I find it inexcusable that in order to win a sectarian point, a professor of history can manufacture a historical lie that there was a tie between Kintu and Mugwanya which was only broken by the Kabaka who appointed three special members to vote against Mugwanya. The audacity with which Kiwanuka, a Muganda, tells jibs about the Kabaka to the extent of accusing him of having sectarian religious tendencies is amazing. As for me I come from a family whose members have intermingled happily with all people of different religions and Kiwanuka’s outburst against me is inconsequential.
Suffice it to say that my grandfather, Ham Mukasa a protestant, donated free of charge the land on which Kiwanuka’s catholic school, Namiryango College was built.
We should emulate the broad visions of the Ham Mukasas, Stanislas Mugwanyas and Badru Kakungulus of yesteryear rather than the constricted visions of the Kiwanukas of today who scavenge for religious conflicts.
I find it unnecessary to comment on the other points of a personal nature raised by Kiwanuka except his remark about good breeding as taught by his British teachers one of whose aspects is to “know what to say, where to say it or not to say itâ€.
Lloyd George, the first Welsh British prime minister, also advised on etiquette and good breeding in a broad-minded society when in one of his speeches he said, “always have something to say, say it and shut up.†I had the privilege of being taught constitutional law in London by Lloyd George’s ageing former private secretary who used to lapse into telling anecdotes about his boss.
One of the anecdotes I like best was the advice Lloyd George used to give that however provoked personally in a debate, do not answer in kind so that people may be able to distinguish a gentleman from a demagogue.