Tribal clashes have betrayed the spirit of Constitutionalism

By David Kisembo

THE spirit of re-introducing kingdoms and recognizing other cultural institutions under Article 246 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda was to harness traditional structures that would promote values, norms, myths, language, social etiquettes, identity and other tenets, which give cultural meaning to people, mainly those that cherish such institutions.

In a word, the restoration was for cultural purposes. The crux was that kingdoms and other cultural institutions would be built on shared values and free will of the people.

The President and Government in general, expected that sworn subjects of these kingdoms would visit their cultural leaders in the centres of gravity of their authority and pay allegiance.

But once a king or chief was to visit an area within their jurisdiction, subjects would voluntarily organize the functions and pay tribute, and, if they so wished, also offer loyalties to their cherished cultural leader. 

Forceful visits to reluctant communities, which could inevitably attract chaos and bloodshed were not envisaged.

Unfortunately, the recent tribal clashes and ongoing tensions in parts of Kasese, Bundibugyo and Ntoroko districts have defeated the spirit of the Constitution.

The problem in the case of Obusinga Bwa Rwenzururu, the recognised cultural institution so far, is partly due to an attempt by the institution to engage in a struggle to diffuse cultural with political power, and occupy the cultural spaces of other groups. 

Given the tribal conflicts in Kasese district with the Basongora, Banyabindi and the Bamba, Babwisi and Batuku, among others, in Bundibugyo and Ntoroko district respectively, Rwenzururu kingdom has now become a source of conflict in the region.

The Government cannot afford to sweep these clashes under the carpet because it may result into something more undesirable than has already been witnessed.

The problem partly stems from the ambiguity surrounding the name Rwenzururu kingdom, and the expressed intentions of its leadership.

Whereas the other tribes and nationalities in the Rwenzori area and its environs consider Obusinga Bwa Rwenzururu to be a cultural institution for the Bakonzo alone, His Highness Mumbere and the kingdom leadership continue to refer to all other ethnic groups in the region as subjects of the Omusinga.

The word Rwenzururu kingdom connotes a kingdom of the nzururu, and nzururu means snow. This can literally be translated to mean a kingdom of the snowcapped mountainous communities.

Ironically, therefore, to be a king of the snowcapped region (i.e. Rwenzururu) means Mumbere is the king of the area covering Rwenzori geopolitical area, which covers the districts of Kasese, Bundibugyo, Kabarole, Ntoroko, Bushenyi and parts of eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

Collectively, the kingdom calls the people in this region BanyaRwenzururu. Sadly, there is no community in Uganda according to the 1995 Constitution called BanyaRwenzururu.

No wonder, the other ethnic groups would not want to hear anyone address them by this label. After all, they also rightfully argue, Mumbere cannot give any meaningful cultural guidance or leadership to them. 

He can only subdue them. But this subjugation cannot be realised without a fight.

Unlike some kingdoms and cultural institutions in Uganda like Buganda, Bunyoro and, Busoga, the geographical boundary of Rwenzururu kingdom is undefined.

In recognising a cultural institution of multiple customs and cultural heritage, the Government should perhaps have been keener. 

Indeed a delegation of the Bamba expressed their misgivings about the name of this kingdom to President Museveni in 2009 before Mumbere was officially recognized as king. 

The argument then was that this was bound to bring conflict in the region.

The people who have traditionally lived in this area include Bakonzo, Batooro, Bamba, Babwisi, Banyabindi, Basongola, Batuku, Batwa, Batalinga, Balendu, Bambuttu, Hema and others.

Each has different customs and cultural practices and identity. It is extremely difficulty to prevail on all of them without their free will, driven by common ties.

To them, Mumbere is king of the Bakonzo. Naturally, it would take a lot of humility for Mumbere to accept this.

Looking at the tribal clashes between the Bamba-Babwisi and Bakonzo in Bundibugyo in July, the immediate cause was Mumbere’s claim to ancestral origin in the area, erecting of a shrine and attempt to plant trees in the sub-counties of Bwamba.

This, according to the indigenous Bamba and Babwisi, symbolizes self-imposed rule in the area. It rekindled the anti-kingdom spirit of the Rwenzururu armed struggle of the 1950s and 1960s, this time against the Bakonzo.

The perception that the Rwenzururu kingdom is a culmination of the Rwenzururu movement of the 1960’s is misconceived and misleading. 

The latter was a freedom fighting movement against the repressive, oppressive, marginalisation and discriminatory tendencies of then Tooro kingdom. 

In fact the movement resonated around a strong detest for kingdoms.

Overall, the composition and expressions of Rwenzururu Kingdom of Wisely Mumbere are now beginning to raise questions as to whether this is a political kingdom in a caricature of a traditional cultural skin.

A critical outlook portrays it as institution built on annihilation of other ethnic groups than conscientious and free will of its would-be subjects. 

How quickly have we forgotten that diffusion of political and cultural powers partly led to the abolition of kingdoms in Uganda in the 1960s? 

As a way forward, the Government should offer further legislative guidance on these institutions.

Their establishment, recognition, funding, operations and management need better regulation. Each cultural institution must have a culture it intends to promote and preserve.

It must also have an established history, and its space defined. Those bent on expansionist tendencies should be brought to order.

Writer is a lawyer