Dear readers,
The Cultural leaders Bill (2010) is not just annoying but it is likely to breed more than chaos in our country if passed by the parliament. The bill is a disastrous draconian law that has little direct connection with keeping cultural leaders on the leash other than shutting their mouths indefinitely on national causes or issues, as if they are half citizens of Uganda. Uganda Lawmakers are preparing to vote on a bill that would eventually outlaw nearly all traditional institutions in the country, a measure that could become the most sweeping ban in Uganda history.
The bill’s definitions of “partisan politics” are laughable to say the least. I was mostly concerned with the following definitions: (c)” recommending a particular person to the public with a view to promoting that person politically”; (e)” making statements against Government policies or programmes”; and (f)” making statements or comments on Bills or motions under consideration by Parliament with a view to influencing their outcome”. This is simply called interfering with the “freedom of speech,” of traditional leaders not ‘partisan politics.’ In any democracy, even people with traditional or cultural roles can’t be prevented from having an opinion — a.k.a. “freedom of speech.” They may not, however, campaign for, or endorse, specific candidates because that would be “partisan politics.”
The very term “partisan politics” refers to supporting one party over another, or one particular candidate, which Mengo or any other kingdom never openly does. Yes,Ssubi was formed by former Katikiro of Buganda after he resigned from all his duties at the kingdom.In any case, Ssubi would not have been formed if the demands by the Mengo admnistration had been met by the central government. Buganda kingdom particularly does, however, engage in what it considers to be efforts in favor of moral issues.The president may disagree with the Kabaka( Buganda kingdom), but he has to admit that opposing bad policies or leadership on moral grounds is clearly within the purview of any cultural leader, not just the Kabaka. If the truth is more important than partisan politics, I’m sure president Museveni who is the architect of this bill, will take the time to learn. If partisan politics are more important, then he is just wasting my time and yours.
Kabaka Mutebi
Part 2 of clause 7 of the bill is another annoying one as it says: ”The Government may in accordance with a court order withdraw its recognition of a traditional or cultural leader where the traditional or cultural leader:(a) acts in contravention of the Constitution or this Act; or (b) abdicates the institution of a traditional or cultural leader”. This article just confirms all the fears people have always had that president Museveni is planning to ‘abolish’ kingdoms in the country. This means that if this bill is passed and mengo goes ahead and starts opposing some other ‘funny’ bills, as it did with the land bills, then Kabaka may end up served with a notice to say good bye to his kingdom.
Clause 9(2) says:’’ Where there is more than one traditional or cultural leader in the area of a regional government the position of the titular head of the regional government shall be held by each of the traditional or cultural leaders within the area of the regional government in rotation for one year at a time.’’ This was intended to make the chiefdoms created in Buganda under Museveni very happy. It simply means that Ssabaruli or Ssabanyala can easily take over at Mengo and, by law; Baganda will just have to accept it. I will not be surprised if these chiefdoms embrace this bill with two hands because their survival solely depends on the government in power. It should not be forgotten that Uganda had only four recognised kingdoms at independence in 1962.
Concerning the conduct of cultural leaders with foreign governments, article 15 of the bill says:’’(1) A traditional or cultural leader shall not deal with foreign governments except with the approval of the minister responsible for foreign affairs; and (2) The minister responsible for foreign affairs shall develop guidelines for approval to be granted under subsection (1).’’ This means that the Kabaka has to seek permission before he hosts any foreign leader as he did sometime last year when he received a delegation from Swaziland, the US ambassador at Kireka palace, and the Libyans when Gadaffi visited Uganda.
Clause 17 says:’ The ministry responsible for culture shall once in every calendar year cause to be published in the Gazette a List of all traditional or cultural leaders in Uganda whom Government facilitates.’’ This in effect means that the government intends to create more traditional leaders as it has been doing ever since Kabaka and president Museveni fell out, and any of the cultural leaders who falls out with the government will not be listed in the annual gazette( which I suspect will be the Newvision newspaper). In other words, becoming a traditional leader is going to become more like winning a prize or trophy of some sort, as in like football or other sports. It is also one way of blackmailing traditional leaders to support whatever the government wants.
Clause 18 is meant to cut off the likes of Beti Nambooze, Medard Segona and Mpunga from the Kabaka completely. Nambooze was the chairperson of the Buganda civic Educational Committee, an organization mandated by Mengo to teach people the ills in the 2007 land bill which was later passed by the government. Namboze and the two Mengo ministers ended up being arrested and later charged in courts of law. But with this bill, it means the Kabaka is ‘’ personally liable for criminal offences committed by the traditional or cultural leader or the agents or persons in the employment or acting under the authority of the traditional or cultural leader’’. In otherwords, the government is trying to cut off Kabaka or other cultural leaders from their loyal subjects. The bill is practically dumping them in a social ‘prison’. It also means that we are likely to see the Kabaka arrested or in a dock or jail at some point if he breaks any of the contents in this bill.
The ancient Greeks maintained that “a bad law is no law.”They did not expect people with common sense to take bad laws seriously. Yet, as a nation, we are so regimented that we are willing to use guns, parliament, jails, prisons and all manner of violence to enforce bad laws on otherwise law abiding citizens, as the traditional leaders in our country. I therefore request Uganda law makers to throw this bill in the bin because it is simply a bad law. It does not belong with us at all.
Byebyo ebyange
Abbey Kibirige Semuwemba
Home and Away! 
Jan 16, 2011 @ 10:00:11
dear all. According to Museveni, when these cultural leaders support him or Nrm, they are not partisan. A good example is the Langi Cultural leader who recently urged people at a big gathering to vote Museveni. I come from Tooro Kingdom and Museveni is one of the regeants of our young King. Am sure, if one of his opponents was appointed a reagent of the King, he would have been labeled partisan. In summary therefore, as long as these cultural leaders disagree with him on particular issues, then they are partisan! But when they heap praises on him and his Nrm, then they are not partisan. I would like to remind Museveni and his Nrm, that restoration of these Kingdoms does not mean him and his government created them! All these institutions were there before Nrm and Museveni! Let him abolish them and some day someone else shall restore them! This is far much better than armtwisting these leaders! Uganda is for all of us! It did not start with Museveni or Nrm and neither shall it end with them!
Jan 16, 2011 @ 13:41:08
Summary: From a distance, one might feel we in today’s Uganda are in a mad-house. Public transport buses are removed from their routes, leading to paralysis, to transport people, at a handsome pay, to cheer the incumbent on a highly choreographed rally. A candidate bribes the people, no longer with ‘khakhi’ envelopes but with chunks of land, not just miles of land, but with districts.
Funnier though is the fact that Kings can now be made and un-made, in our beloved Uganda, at the whims of the “ABOVE”.
To be created a King in Uganda today, sorry in Buganda today, is very simple: Declare that you have a people in Buganda who do not recognise the King at Mmengo. You will get the Police allocating 50% of the riot component to guard roads to your “kingdom” – a house with a fence around it, so that the ancient King may not visit his own people, who form 80% of the populace in the visited area. Then ask an ideologue, say, by the name of David Mafabi [Presidential propaganda guru] to explain how kings can be created by amending the constitution, outside a constituent Assembly.He, with impunity, explains how the 1955 and the 1900 Buganda, soryy Uganda agreements did the same [so we are equal or not better than the colonialists?]
More interesting though, Kings in Uganda, before the 18th Feb. 2011 elections, can and MUST be unmade in the following SEVEN ways here, today- Read on.
At this rate, where Kings are to be made and un-made at the whims of the “ABOVE”, and where symbols, perceived as partisan by the “ABOVE”, can lead a King to loose his Kingdom, where a King can be given a monthly stipend to remain politically correct and where, when a King refuses gifts, the donor throws tantrums rather than celebrate, we shall soon have such situations pointed out bellow – read on:
1. A King may not handle a key, be it for his vehicle, his bedroom, etc. The will live in un-lockable houses or better become complete ‘invalid’ Kings: Everything done for them. But wait, a King will be punished for crimes commited by his agents. So, the palaces for kings will remain open since, no one will touch a key without putting the master in trouble.
2. They may never show their hands in public, let they be thought to be Otunu agents.
They may not clinch fists is excitement or, in fury. His is pure DP.
3. If a king attends a party where the icing is in blue, he will be removed.
4. They may not dive under a blue sky.
5. The colours of the Buganda Royal insignia and Standard must be changed form the blue they have been for the last 120 or more years to “bogoya” yellow, if need be.
6. They may no handle a hoe (say presenting it to successful school children, in a gardening competition at a “Kisaakate –Royal Court class” – session). You are then DP.
7. They may not participate in prayers since this is a religious partisan tendency.
The list of what may annoy the Emperor [Ssabagabe] is long. Pity poor Uganda.
==end==
Jan 20, 2011 @ 13:52:13
Hi,
Normally, i have political discussions with people i presume are rational, but let me hope UAH contributors all are.
The Cultural leaders Bill (2010) should first be skinned off suspicion and opportunism before it can be meaningfully useful to all Ugandans. First and foremost, Cultural Leaders should never, ever engage in politiking in a regional, tribal or personal manner. They should only express their views formally directed to to the person of the president, like what the ambassadors and diplomats do because according to history and beliefs, every Dick Tom and Harry are theirs to look after.They should never show or act in a manner that suggest favouritism of one person/s over another. And another thing worth remembering, which should be jealously protected as valuable knowledge is the fact that Kings are Kings and can be easily manipulated as it has always been the case. This can only be controlled and stopped by a this kind of bill.
Now if by human opportunism, they are tempted to venture into open politiking (Not Necessary by words but if by actions), they should be constitutionally protected.
Right now they protection they ever get depends on the moods of the president. What is available constitutionally can not protect these Kings in any way, as it can generate numerous versions of interpretations.
Sometimes i wonder, are we for of against protecting our Kings or it politics as usual.
Jan 20, 2011 @ 13:52:58
Peter,
I agree with you but not entirely. The issue of politics is relative and may not be easy to separate from administrative roles especially if we take the definition of politics to be the art or science of government or governing people.
The ideal issue would be to keep our kings away from partisan politics and to do this one has to use straight forward law such as the traditional leader should not be a member of any political party, should not participate in political activities, should not aid or finance a political party etc.
However we can not stop them from hosting politicians from all political parties, we can not stop them from criticizing the sitting govts where they feel that less has been done to help their subjects etc.
With out being subjective, you will note that our current govt has a different definition of politics. If a cultural leader supports govt programs and bill and appears at NRM functions, then that person is not in politics. On the other hand, if a cultural leader says no to a bill or a govt policy and refuses to pick calls from political party leaders, then that is partisan politics.
We should avoid laws that will never survive a taste of time like the ones made by Pigs in the ANIMAL FARM.
Jude m
Jan 20, 2011 @ 13:56:46
Abbey,
I wonder whether Petitions can have any effect in UG! It would be wise to get a petition for such good grounds of the Bill rejection which seem to be sensible and factual. These people have to know that they are throwing years of traditional ideologies and moral investiment in the bin which could bring about moral growth inhibition resulting in behavioural catastrophic communities! Especially when the Bill talks about intention of abolition of Kingdoms’!
Jan 23, 2011 @ 18:11:18
Traditional Leader’s Bill, are they really serious?
Here’s how the story goes. According to the constitution traditional leaders are not supposed to participate in partisan politics. Fine, well and good we all agree with that. So government has introduced a bill in parliament to operationalise article 246 of the said constitution.
As usual cabinet that included the Attorney General convened and approved the white paper and consequently the bill that we now know as the Traditional Leaders Bill. Its good intention is to prevent the said leaders from participating in partisan politics. But from then on, things started going terribly wrong.
The executive require the support of MP’s to pass the bill into law so meetings took place. It was at such meetings that it was discovered that ‘someone’ had got hold of the white paper after cabinet had approved it and inserted in about four controversial closes’, according to the President. Excuse me. The cabinet has a secretary and sits in the same building as the president’s office and parliament. Therefore whoever changed the contents of this bill as it travelled from the Cabinet Secretary’s Office to the Office of the Speaker of parliament cannot be hard to find.
Surely this was a document with severe political implications for the country and the presidency I’d assume that the IGP Gen. Kayihura and head of CID must have by now apprehended whoever changed the print of decision of national government because this is forgery of the highest order.
But there are more problems with this bill. It seems that the attorney General Kidhu Makubuya and Vice President Gilbert Bukenya did not attend the cabinet meeting that approved the white paper. Worse still, Makubuya never received a cabinet memo about this bill either and is now saying that if he had attended or known about it, 20 out of the 21 closes of the bill would not have been included. Given these circumstances, there seems to be total collapse of operation of government.
But that is not the end of the story, after political negotiations or arm twisting, 15 of the 21 controversial closes have been dropped. So here we go. There was 21 closes, 4 of them smuggled in by an unknown operator in the corridors of the parliament building. These 4 are part of 15 that have been removed altogether. So who had smuggled in the other 11 closes?
The answerer is YOWERI MUSEVENI. This man, the President is the brain behind this bill. The bill is his brain child. He is the one with so much hatred for Baganda, the Kabaka to the extent that he can come up with such a proposal of legislation. It is this man that has the brains of such evil that he can persuade his party to follow his sick minded practices and arrogance. Yoweri Museveni is the fulcrum, the centre and source of all evil that has happened to Uganda in the last 35 years and that includes this bill. He is the one who dictated all the 21 closes in the bill without approval of his own cabinet and is now trying to force parliament to pass a bill that his own Attorney General has declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This is called abuse of power and is a treasonable crime in Uganda.
His assertion that “Is there any word that says Buganda in this bill” is typical of an individual who has built a well firm foundation of political manipulation and lies. The bill does not have to say ‘Buganda anywhere, but every person who has read through it can vividly see that it is targeting to either kill or exile the Kabaka. To dry the Buganda treasury and to destroy a major pillar of the culture of the people of Buganda. One must have a mind of evil and behavior of a devil to have come up with this bill. Only one person in Uganda shares all these attributes and his name is Yoweri Museveni.
Baganda we’re alone on this one. This bill is targeting us, all of us. We must resist it with all our strengths and resources. Unlike the anti-gay bill, Bill and Hillary Clinton will not call Museveni asking him to withdraw the bill. We are on our own on this one.
Beware there’s one thing in common with all pieces of legislation this government comes up with recently. The Land Bill, Instrument 25, and now the traditional leaders’ bill indicate that political radicalism in creeping into our political system. Yesterday it was the Acholi’s, today it is the Baganda, next time it could be YOU.
Michael Senyonjo
Jan 23, 2011 @ 18:12:07
but only one articles deals with operationalising article 246.the rest is the government creation and that is why those who are constituional experts say,it is uncostitional.that articles does not tell government,to gag traditional leaders or to pay them benefits.does not say about recognition or how aminister can allow or disallow a cultural to travel abroad.the whole thing is fake and a jittery government thinks that is how laws are made.article 246 is simple. this government will never come out with good laws because they bring them in bad faith and for prevailing political situations.
Feb 02, 2011 @ 11:28:40
i dont like that bill