By Steven Masiga
There is an old story about a woman who secretly believed in both God and Satan. Every day she lit two candles—one for God and another for Satan. Her reasoning was simple: when she died, at least one of them would accept her. Unfortunately, when she eventually died, neither accepted her because both questioned her loyalty.
This story offers an important lesson for the Bamasaba community as we navigate the ongoing debate surrounding the institution of the Umukuka.
When His Highness the Umukuka of Bugisu was identified, disagreements arose over the legitimacy of the process. To resolve the impasse, the government invoked Section 16(1) of the Institution of Traditional or Cultural Leaders Act, which provides for mediation in disputes concerning traditional leaders. Following this process, the Umukuka was formally gazetted by the Government of Uganda in accordance with the law.
Those dissatisfied with the outcome exercised their constitutional right by petitioning the courts. The matter remains before the judiciary, where mediation efforts have been ongoing. Like any other legal dispute, the parties should patiently await the court’s final determination.
Surprisingly, some of the very individuals who sought judicial intervention have abandoned the court process and are now mobilizing communities to install another cultural leader. Such actions undermine both the legal process and the rule of law, and have understandably raised concern among judicial officers and many members of the community.
A careful reading of Article 246 of the Constitution of Uganda demonstrates that the restoration and recognition of traditional and cultural institutions are rooted in constitutional and statutory law. What the law establishes can only be altered or withdrawn through lawful procedures.
Uganda’s constitutional history is instructive. Traditional institutions were recognized under earlier constitutional arrangements but were abolished by the 1967 Constitution, which stripped cultural leaders of their legal recognition. Their status was only restored by the 1995 Constitution and subsequent legislation, particularly the Institution of Traditional or Cultural Leaders Act, 2011.
It is therefore unfortunate that some voices within Bugisu appear determined to disregard the very legal framework that restored cultural institutions. In today’s Uganda, no traditional or cultural leader can legitimately assume office outside the provisions of the Constitution and the relevant laws governing cultural institutions.
For many years, Bugisu faced challenges because a few elders relied on self-created procedures that lacked legal backing. Neither were these procedures firmly grounded in universally accepted customs and traditions of Bugisu. In the absence of settled customary practices governing the installation of the Umukuka, statutory law provides the legitimate framework for resolving such matters.
When the current Umukuka was recognized, multiple claimants emerged. The government invoked the mediation provisions under Section 16 of the Traditional Leaders Act to resolve the dispute. Although some parties remained dissatisfied and proceeded to court, they should respect the judicial process and await its conclusion instead of creating parallel leadership structures.
The Constitution allows any aggrieved citizen to challenge government decisions before the courts. Having chosen that legal avenue, litigants should allow the judiciary to complete its work. Resorting to alternative processes outside the law only creates confusion and weakens the credibility of those seeking justice.
History also reminds us that Bugisu has long been recognized as a distinct administrative region. During the colonial era, official government publications, including the Uganda Gazette, consistently referred to the region as Bugisu. The area became part of the Uganda Protectorate under the 1902 Orders in Council and was later recognized as a district, with indigenous chiefs gradually replacing appointed Baganda administrators.
Bugisu has never been a completely homogeneous society. Like many communities, it comprises people of different historical origins and identities who have lived together for generations. Diversity should therefore strengthen rather than divide us.
As a people, we possess a rich cultural heritage stretching back centuries. Our discussions should not be confined solely to present political disagreements. Instead, we should preserve and celebrate our broader history, traditions, and identity for future generations.
Unlike some kingdoms with long-established customary procedures for selecting their traditional leaders, Bugisu does not have universally accepted customary rules governing the election of the Umukuka. In such circumstances, statutory law provides the most reliable and legitimate pathway for determining cultural leadership.
I am deeply concerned by reports of groups planning to disrupt the activities of the reigning Umukuka. Any attempt to incite violence or mobilize individuals to create disorder poses a serious threat to public safety and the dignity of our cultural institution. Differences over leadership should never be resolved through intimidation or violence.
Equally worrying are allegations that some individuals are being funded by political actors and other interested parties to fuel divisions within the institution. If true, such actions undermine the unity and integrity of Bugisu’s cultural leadership.
As the spokesperson of the Bugisu Cultural Institution, I appeal to all stakeholders to respect the Constitution, obey the law, and allow disputes to be resolved through lawful mechanisms. Our cultural institution should unite the people of Bugisu, not divide them.
The rule of law remains the strongest foundation upon which lasting peace, unity, and respect for our cherished cultural heritage can be built.
The writer is the Spokesperson of the Bugisu Cultural Institution.
