For all COVID19-related info, click here
By Gilbert Mwesigye
By and large, Baganda are always expected to be cautious and nervous when analyzing the role of Mengo of the 1960s and its party KY in the political turbulence that befell Uganda culminating into the Amin coup of 1971 which itself was preceded by invasion of the Lubiri by central government forces in 1966 resulting into Kabaka Mutesa’s deportation and ban on Kingdoms. But not so with Sr Counsel Sam Mayanja; a practicing lawyer and University law don.
The University law don, who is also one of the President’s lawyers practicing under KAA, has in his latest scholarly missive disputed the speech Kabaka Mutebi made last week during his 27th coronation anniversary. Mayanja says that the cultural head of Buganda has no moral authority to demand for Federo, like he did during the coronation ceremony, because the era of political power being vested in monarchs like him passed and its no longer possible.
In his speech, the Kabaka reflected on what Mengo has accomplished under his leadership adding that there would be much more if it wasn’t for the Kingdom’s political powerlessness which he attributed to lack of the Federo system of government.
But Mayanja asserts that Mengo can never wield political powers again, through monarchism, unless they emulate what Botswana’s Seretse Khama did in the late 1950s by forming a political party through which they can canvass for political support from the population and access power through constitutional means.
He says because he was farsighted, Khama (who was exiled in UK just like Mutesa II during the decade preceding Independence) prudently formed Bechuanaland Democratic Party whose nationalist agenda enabled it to win pre-independence elections in Botswana and remaining the ruling party up to this day.
Mayanja contrasts this with Uganda’s Sir Edward Mutesa who he says allowed being patronized and misadvised by Mengo-based oligarchs of the 1950s-1960s who were parorchial and inward-looking. That as a result of ill-advice from such people, Mutesa blundered in many ways including epitomizing a political agenda that despised accountability for public funds and universal adult-suffrage elections in favor of appointed leaders.
Mayanja says Mutesa ought to have learnt from pre-1952 political formations (like 1920s’ Bataka Party, 1930s’ Uganda African Motor Drivers Association and late 1940s’ African Farmers Union) that became popular because they advocated for popular elections and political accountability for public funds. The three organizations preceded the formation of IK Musaazi’s UNC in 1952.
Mayanja asserts that the KY party (which Mutesa formed in a haste without adequate prior thought simply because he realized the British would only hand independence over to political parties as opposed to monarchies like his) didn’t instantly enjoy mass popular support of the people because people perceived it as anti-masses because of its hostility to accountability and mass enfranchisement of the people through universal adult suffrage mode of elections.
That subsequently, KY (whose symbol initially was the Kabaka’s portrait) resorted to violence to subdue dissenting voices in Buganda that were trying to propagate an alternative agenda different from that of KY.
Mayanja references on residential houses that were razed to the ground and banana plantations that were slashed down by KY militant mobs that considered it betrayal for anybody in Buganda to harbor a political agenda that was different from the Kabaka’s or KY. That those who rejected and condemned the KY violence were ostracized as traitors and foreigners/Bannamawanga who had no business living in the Buganda territory.
He also argues that the cutting of coffee plantations, burning of houses and cattle herds amounted to KY functionaries criminalizing political dissent in Uganda and cimmends the 1995 Constitution for recognizing and protecting the same as freedom of expression under Article 29.
Before concluding that the eventual attack on Lubiri, deportation of Mutesa and abolition of Buganda Kingdom was precipitated by the violence and political intolerance KY operatives fermented at the urging of Mengo; Mayanja calls upon the current leadership at Mengo to learn from such painful history and realize the futility of attempting to resurrect the Federo debate or demands as opposed to seeking political power through political party formation.
He asserts that the violence and intolerance exhibited by what he calls “KY mobs and hooligans” permanently discredited any moves by Buganda Kingdom to assert its demands regarding any political power ever returning to Mengo through agitating for Federo.
For comments on this story, call, text or whatsapp us on 0705579994, 0779411734, 0200900416 or email us at mulengera2040@gmail.com).