By Steven Masiga
Bugisu region is one of the communities in Uganda with a gazetted cultural leader, alongside others such as Buganda, Busoga, Bunyoro, Acholi, Lango, Budama, Kasese, among others. Some of these traditional and cultural institutions existed before the enactment of the 1995 Constitution, such as Bugisu, Buganda, Budama, Bunyoro, Busoga, Sebei, among others.
However, they were abolished by the Government in 1967, when it lost interest in both cultural and traditional institutions following their evaluation. The Government at that time de-constitutionalized and outlawed their existence. Some cultural and traditional leaders were arrested, while others fled into exile. In the absence of legal recognition, any continued existence was deemed illegal and thus ultra vires.
During the NRA military rebellion, discussions were made with several communities regarding the restoration of cultural and traditional leaders. Informal agreements were reached with some communities to support the rebellion in an attempt to achieve the restoration of cultural and traditional institutions. At some point, the Prince in waiting of Buganda, Ronald Mutebi, accompanied rebel leader Yoweri Museveni, alongside the likes of John Nagenda, in some parts of liberated areas of Buganda around 1983 or thereabout, to encourage Buganda to support the rebellion against their own son-in-law, President Milton Obote, who had abolished cultural and traditional institutions in 1967.
When the NRA came to power, there was political willingness to restore traditional and cultural institutions as custodians of cultural norms and traditions of their communities. Later, constitutional provisions were put in place under the 1995 Constitution, which legalized their existence.
The restoration of these kingdoms came with certain conditions, as seen in the Constitution. For example, cultural or traditional institutions should never exercise legislative, executive, or administrative powers.
Where is the problem in Bugisu? The wrangles over cultural leadership in Bugisu reflect a failure by the community to appreciate that there is a law that governs cultural leadership. Before Government could fully activate Article 246, since there was no prince-in-waiting in Bugisu for traditional institutions, some elders—who are not legally empowered to enact laws—created their own arrangements where a cultural leader could be elected or identified by various means. This is the cause of the current conflict: whether to follow Government legislation on cultural leadership or follow what the “elders have enacted.”
In 2011, the Institution of Traditional and Cultural Leaders Act was enacted by Government (Parliament) to operationalize Article 246 of the Constitution, which provides guidance on how communities can identify cultural leaders. However, the Act appears to be poorly understood and insufficiently sensitized among many communities, including elites, hence the prevailing ignorance about its effectiveness. More sensitization is needed.
In jurisprudence, there are several schools of thought, including the Natural Law School, Positive Law School, Marxist, Historical, Sociological, and Realist schools. These attempt to explain how laws emerge in societies. The Positive School holds that it is the State, with authority, that enacts laws for society, and no other entity is empowered to do so; this falls under the sovereign theory.
Another useful theory is Realism, which argues that one cannot know the law in advance until courts have pronounced themselves on a particular matter. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his seminal work published in 1897, stated that “the prophecies of what courts will do is what I mean by law.” Realist scholars emphasize that law is what courts actually do, not just what is written.
Equally important is the Sociological School, which argues that laws originate from communities and reflect the spirit of the people. This school contrasts with the Positive School, which holds that only Government has authority to enact laws.
Bugisu region remains stuck in cultural conflicts because everyone wants to be a king, and some politicians are fueling confusion by supporting parallel groups to undermine a properly gazetted cultural leader. The lack of legal understanding is a major problem that must be addressed. We cannot accept such levels of ignorance where everyone seeks to determine cultural leadership outside the law. Why can’t we allow the law to guide us?
The current cultural leader, His Highness Jude Mike Mudoma, was gazetted in line with Article 246 of the Constitution and the Institution of Traditional and Cultural Leaders Act, 2011, in conformity with the norms of the community.
Around 2020, there was a serious conflict over who should be the cultural leader of Bugisu. This conflict was resolved through statutory provisions in the Constitution and Section 16(1)(2) of the Institution of Traditional and Cultural Leaders Act, which encourages mediation. A team of elders was assembled to mediate, leading to the gazettement of the current cultural leader, His Highness Jude Mike Mudoma, as Umukuka of Inzu yamasaba.
Government, through the corrigendum, made appropriate corrections since a cultural leader cannot head a mere non-constitutional association. The corrections from Inzu yamasaba to Bugisu Cultural Institution were anchored in Article 10A of the 1995 Constitution and Schedule 3 on indigenous communities in Uganda, and were universalized across cultural institutions. Why then is Bugisu more aggrieved than other communities?
Founders of Inzu yamasaba, who were uncomfortable with this arrangement, sued Government for allegedly taking away their “bridegroom.” They argued that the Umukuka was their bridegroom and that Government was interfering in how they choose their cultural leader. The current dispute is essentially a conflict between Government and sections of the community over who has final authority in the selection of cultural leaders. Since Bugisu lacks well-documented customary mechanisms like Buganda, mediators are expected to guide the process.
The ongoing mediation to resolve the impasse in Bugisu is grounded in law, and I am happy to report that the mediators appointed are highly qualified and experienced in mediation. The panel of five mediators is headed by Deputy Chief Justice Emeritus Justice Anthony Butera, Justice Andrew Khaukha (Head of the Judicial Training Institute), Justice Bamwine Yorokamu (former judge), Francis Atwooki (former Solicitor General), and Senior Counsel Gimara.
The panel, in assisting the Bugisu community, will rely on Articles 126(2)(d) and (e), which emphasize reconciliation of parties and promotion of justice among disputants.
The Judiciary has also drafted an enabling instrument on mediation aimed at reducing case backlog. Mediation waives several procedural rules and is credited with promoting reconciliation. As one scholar noted, it is “justice for the common man” and focuses on resolving disputes, whereas courts primarily decide cases. As observed by Prof. Fred Ngugi of the Kenyan Supreme Court during training sessions in Munyonyo at the AJS National Summit 2025, mediation resolves disputes while courts determine them.
Mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism is ancient, biblical, and also reflected in the Qur’an. It is reported that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) used mediation to prevent conflict during the reconstruction of the Kaaba. In legal literature, Frank E. A. Sander is credited as a pioneer of mediation through the Multi-Door Courthouse concept, which emphasizes that not all disputes require litigation.
Prof. Andrew Khaukha, one of the mediators, while addressing court in Mbale High Court on 24 April 2026, used the analogy of three children fighting over an orange. When asked how the children should resolve the issue, he explained that one child wanted the peel, another the juice, and the third the seeds—showing that the orange was sufficient for all.
The Judiciary has invested heavily in mediation through engagements and benchmarking with countries such as Namibia and Zambia. Prof. Khaukha has been at the forefront of these efforts alongside the current and outgoing Chief Justice.
Parties in mediation should note that the process is supported by statutory law and civil procedure rules. They should not impose unnecessary conditions but act in good faith and maintain confidentiality. As the Latin legal maxim states: Ubi jus ibi remedium, where there is a right, there is a remedy.
Steven Masiga is the spokesperson of Bugisu Cultural Institution and a legal scholar. Tel: 0782231577.
