Once gazetted by the government, all cultural leaders are well-enumerated and provided with standard means of mobility. In some communities, this good facilitation has unfortunately become a source of scuffles, with everyone fighting to become a king.
It is a long-held principle of constitutional law that a preamble of a constitution is unenforceable and cannot be cited in legal proceedings. This was succinctly highlighted in one of the leading cases on citizenship in East Africa.
However, I must overtly acknowledge the significance of the framing of State Objective XXIV on cultural development and the preservation of our heritage, which eventually metamorphosed into Article 246. This article gave birth to the present cultural and traditional institutions and their leaders in Uganda. Other notable constitutional provisions on culture and customs include Article 37, which allows communities to enjoy and celebrate their culture, and Article 237, which provides for the customary land tenure system.
It is plausible for me to insist that without the current statutory framework recognizing traditional and cultural leaders, kingdoms such as Buganda would still have Mr. Ronald Mutebi as a prince—not a king. The same would apply to hereditary leaders of Bunyoro, Toro, and others—they too would still be referred to as princes, not kings.
The Bamasaaba people would, by all intents and purposes, have no Umukuka. Likewise, Teso, Lango, and Acholi would not have kings without the present enabling laws.
As stated earlier, without the current legal provisions, we would not have an Umukuka or any other traditional leader recognized and gazetted by government.
To further validate my point about the relevance of the present law on traditional and cultural institutions: while I was growing up in the early 1990s, we had never heard of the Umukuka until the introduction of the presidential law on the same.
Both traditional and cultural institutions, therefore, have a fundamental task of uniting their people. Any cultural institution that glosses over this responsibility should be reprimanded. Cultural and traditional institutions exist to unify their communities. That is their singular task. We are the custodians of the culture and customs of our people, and we must ensure unity, hard work, moral uprightness, and heritage preservation.
The formal re-establishment of Bukuka (or traditional leadership) in Uganda begins with the 1995 Constitution—of course, discounting earlier constitutions of the 1960s. Kingdoms like Buganda and Bunyoro, however, have had leadership structures dating back centuries.
The majority of cultural institutions—about 95%—are a creation of the NRM government. In subsequent editions, we shall interrogate why the government fronted the idea of communities having their own cultural leaders.
We salute the government for fulfilling its political promises. Sometimes such promises should be applauded, as many politicians often gloss over previous commitments made to the people.
Cultural institutions and their leaders in Uganda have no excuse not to mobilize their communities in appreciation of government programs. These leaders are also vested with cultural authority to guide their communities on matters of culture and general direction. They see far, and as such, they serve as the “Northern Star,” providing guidance and stability.
Currently, Uganda has about 18 traditional and cultural institutions combined. The Constitution allows every community to have a cultural leader, provided they meet the set minimum criteria.
The Bamasaaba have, so far, had three cultural leaders since 2010.
The writer is a lawyer and spokesperson for the Bugisu Cultural Institution. Tel: 0782231577
