Many military conflicts in Uganda were extinguished through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADR) rather than through military hardware. If battle-hardened combatants like Generals Museveni and Okello, armed to the teeth with AK-47s, could put their weapons down in favor of peace talks in Nairobi, how about cultural leaders who execute voluntary roles in their communities? The LRA war was another example of a deadly conflict in Uganda extinguished through peaceful means, where many combatants were promised amnesty by the state.
Many communities that have expressed interest in having cultural leaders have not succeeded simply because of their inability to follow the relevant procedures outlined by the law. Among some of the communities that have failed to have their leaders gazetted include the Batwa of Western Uganda, the Bagwere of Bukedi region, the Sabinyi of Sebei region, the Babukusu of Bududa and Namisindwa Districts, including the Banyole of Bukedi and the Banyankole of Western Uganda, among others.
Many of these have failed to attract the support of local governments in their jurisdictions to come to their rescue, while others have failed to follow the remedies laid down on how to resolve leadership wrangles in the cultural institution.
The current leadership of Inzu Yamasaba is a product of alternative dispute resolution mechanism after the cultural elections held in October 2020 had many claimants. To arrive at the most legitimate claimant, the elders assembled under the authority of Section 16(1) of the Cultural Leaders Act and Article 246(1) of Uganda’s constitution, arrived at the rightful claimant to the throne of Inzu Yamasaba through ADR.
The Cultural Leaders Act of 2011 and the Constitution of Uganda lay down how cultural conflicts relating to leadership or ascension to the cultural throne should be handled. In Section 16(1)(2) of the Cultural and Traditional Leaders Act, elders are enjoined to assemble and resolve the impasse. Such a resolution will bind parties; even if one of the parties is not satisfied with that resolution, then through Section 16(2), they can invite another representative body to mediate and resolve the impasse on leadership. It is only when these two statutory provisions fail that one can petition the court. Hence, anyone rushing to court must demonstrate to the court that all statutory remedies were fully exhausted.
Many communities have become weary or even died due to failure to have their cultural leaders recognized and gazetted by the government. One of the claimants to the Bugwere cultural claimants blamed the president’s principal private secretary at the time, Dr. Omona, for blocking them from accessing the president. However, issues relating to the gazetting of a cultural leader have more to do with the Gender Ministry than the president and others like the Attorney General. These are the statutory offices mandated to deal with the gazetting, hence my estimation is that Dr. Omona is wrongly blamed.
Ministers or the Ministry of Gender and Social Development should come out always and guide communities on how such conflicts on cultural leadership can be extinguished. Many communities in Uganda would want to have their leaders who were properly elected as cultural leaders gazetted but are ignorant of the measures and procedures laid down by the law on how such a dispute ought to be resolved. Yet the law has useful tips on how to manage such an impasse. Hence, claimants often petition everyone including witch doctors, priests, local governments, and Resident District Commissioners.
Therefore, I encourage the Ministry of Gender to sensitize communities on how to resolve such conflicts by continuously sensitizing on these useful steps before claimants can petition the court. In Uganda, under the rules of civil procedure laid down by the court, courts are even reluctant to entertain a matter if there is no proof on record showing that local efforts were initiated in helping to extinguish the conflict through the alternative dispute resolution mechanism but failed. Indeed, under Ugandan laws, particularly under Article 126 of the Constitution, it also encourages the resolution of civil disputes through mediation, and court litigation can only be commenced after ADR fails to resolve the impasse. A cultural claimant to the throne petitioning court must demonstrate that there were efforts to resolve the impasse through the procedural means laid under the Constitution and the Cultural Leaders Act of 2011; otherwise, such a matter will be thrown out of court on procedural grounds, call it technicalities.
Hence, if military men like Okello and Museveni, Savimbi, Garanga, and also religious men like Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and King Solomon could utilize ADR to resolve many disputes during their time, why can’t we also utilize it to extinguish our community conflicts whether in family, workplace, or cultural conflicts? Through ADR, Prophet Muhammad saved deadly fights during the construction of the Kaaba in Mecca.
Mr. Masiga Steven is a writer and a researcher from Mbale. Tel: 0782231577.
