Thirty-two years ago, in the middle of last month, Mr Charles Peter Mayiga wrote a lengthy letter in which he debunked arguments that the demand for a federal system of government was a Buganda affair. The letter, which was published by the Daily Monitor on May 20, 1994, stated that whereas Buganda’s voice seemed to be louder, other regions of the country were also interested in Federalism.
‘The struggle for a federal form of government should not be depicted to appear like it’s Buganda’s affair alone. I do know that many other areas like Busoga, Bunyoro, Tooro, West Nile, Lango, Acholi are pushing for the same. The only difference is that Buganda speaks loudest because they are near the megaphone and mostly do so in large numbers,’ Mr Mayiga wrote. Mr Mayiga, who was the minister for information and also the official spokesperson of the kingdom, has since risen to become the kingdom prime minister, a post he has held since May 2013.
The letter was in response to an article ‘What colour of dress should Uganda wear?’ which was authored by Mr Charles Onyango Obbo and published on May 17, 1994. In his letter, Mr Mayiga accused Mr Obbo of taking what he described as an ‘anti-federal stance’, which he said was similar to the one that Milton Obote had towed in an effort to justify the abrogation of the 1962 Constitution. At the time Mr Mayiga wrote, Obote was living in exile in Zambia, having been deposed by the military in July 1985. The former president and leader of the Uganda Peoples’ Congress (UPC) died on October 10, 2005, succumbing to kidney failure in a hospital in Johannesburg, South Africa. He was 79.
Simplistic
Mr Mayiga claimed that the argument that the demands for a federal structure were being made by mainly the middle class in Buganda was ‘simplistic’, adding that most of them were actually a regurgitation of what others had stated before in what he described as ‘their attempt to preserve for themselves the totalitarianism of the 1967 Constitution’. ‘I completely disagree that national ‘unity and stability’ is impaired by federalism; if anything, in the period when unitarism was introduced in Uganda (especially between 1967 and 1986), we saw a terrible derogation of that virtue so much so that if it hadn’t been for our lucky stars, come January 1986, Uganda was moving towards ‘Rwandaism’,’ Mr Mayiga wrote.
It was not possible to establish what the term ‘Rwandaism’ was meant to mean or why he used it. The reference to January 1986 was in connection with the National Resistance Movement/Army (NRM/A) shooting its way to power. Mr Mayiga also did not have kind words for some critics of federalism, saying some of their comments bordered on conclusions that national unity was an abstract concept. ‘National unity is forged when democracy prevails. And democracy demands that all people’s values and interests are well catered for and protected. In the case of Uganda, our society is made up of people with diverse backgrounds, which we should respect right from the bottom until we reach the centre,’ Mr Mayiga wrote.
Ask Odoki
He encouraged those who were claiming that the demands for federalism were being driven by the middle class to consult with Justice Benjamin Odoki, who chaired the Constitutional Review Commission. ‘As Justice Ben Odoki, the chairman of the Constitutional Commission, will tell you, no Baganda proposed tearing up the country. They only wish to operate as a unit, just like it was in 1894, 1900, 1955, 1962 up to 1966. There are no political privileges for Buganda and its king that will be achieved through federalism. In any case, monarchism in Buganda doesn’t thrive on federalism, but on the Kiganda Clan System. Indeed, the internal administrative structure of Buganda up to 1966 had a unitary relationship to Mengo,’ he wrote.
It should be remembered that the Odoki Commission commenced work in 1988 and came up with the draft that formed the basis of work by the delegates who were elected on March 28, 1994, to debate and write the 1995 Constitution. The delegates were elected following the debate and passage of the Constituent Assembly (CA) Statute, 1993, by the National Resistance Council (NRC), which served as the country’s fifth Parliament.
‘I believe that if it were not for the love of the people of Buganda to have Uganda as one country, in which case Buganda would be an independent nation, its form of government would have been unitary, given its traditional administrative units mentioned above,’ Mr Mayiga added. He, however, hastened to add that Buganda had never been desirous of seceding, adding that the May 19, 1966, resolution by the Buganda Lukiiko ‘requesting’ the government to quit Buganda’s soil could not be said to have been proof of such a desire.
‘I have stated before that that resolution was not based on Buganda chauvinism, rather it was a desperate (and perhaps unreasonable) reaction to the machinations of an upcoming despot who had no respect for constitutionalism and the rule of law,’ he wrote.
Build up to resolution
He then gave a chronology of the events that led to the May 19, 1966, resolution. They included the August 24, 1964, Obote dissolved the Kabaka Yeka (KY)/UPC alliance and called a referendum on the lost counties of Buyaga and Bugangaizi. It should be remembered that it was thanks to the alliance with KY, which had swept most constituencies in Buganda, that UPC was able to form the first post-independence government, which saw Kabaka Edward Muteesa and Kyabazinga William Wilberforce Kadhumbula of Busoga become President and Vice President.
Buyaga and Bugangaizi counties had been part of Bunyoro Kitara, but had been, with the approval of the colonial administration, annexed by Buganda. As independence was approaching, Bunyoro demanded their return, but the British granted Uganda independence without addressing the matter. On August 24, 1965, the government tabled before Parliament a Bill that aimed to resolve the matter. Buganda was opposed to the Bill.