By Emma Bwayo
Article 246(1) of the Constitution of Uganda States that: A traditional leader or cultural leader is a king or similar traditional leader or cultural leader by whatever name called who derives allegiance from the fact of birth or decent in accordance with the customs, traditions, usage, or consent of the people led by that traditional or cultural LEADER.
Reading from the Article in relation to the current Inzu Ya Masaba crisis, the constitution should have prevailed over to rescue the institution, guide the institution as enshrined in the article.
For Ba’masaba, its a pity that they can watch what is happening in their own home others with excitements, others with pain in their hearts. The transition from the first two predecessors were okay until when it was caught in traffic jam.
In the institution which is growing up and still in its stillbirth, it has been engulfed by transitional crisis unfortunately from one clan of Mwambu, court petitions, halting, summons have defined the two self imposed cultural leaders.
We all know that no institution can have more than one leader sitting on the same crown, performing the same assignments and functions. But we also know that the transitional process is also clear in electing a new Umukhukha Wee Inzu Ya Masaba the selection of delegates to vote their cultural leader are also explained in the constitution of the Inzu Ya Masaba the swearing processes, handover are all captured in the constitution of the cultural institution.
If am to ask the Socratic questions:
What went wrong?
Where is the problem?
Why is persistent?
How is it ending?
When is it ending?
Above all who is a beneficiary?
Referencing back to Article 246(1), the cultural leader must derive his allegiance and consent of his people he rules and it is very clear on that but are we having two warring cultural leaders?
Who is imposing himself on the Ba’masaba? Who is right? Are these cultural leaders ready to serve for the interests, ambitions of the institution? Do they have the blessings of the people they purport to rule?
Why doesn’t the cultural council come out to clear this mess which has been nutmegged by hatred and shame?
Article 246 (3)(d) states that: Unless government so approves, no person shall be compelled to pay allegiance or contribute to the cost of maintaining a traditional or cultural leader. But again how did the Government led by Hon. Min. Mutuuzo hurriedly approved Mudoma as a new cultural leader of the institution without doing due deligience to excarbate the genesis of these standoffs between Mudoma and his nemesis Wagabyalire? Does this promote dialogue and reconciliations?
Now that she hidden under the constitution to represent the government in approving the issues which are far less to get over, will she still impose the Umukhukha on Ba’masaba?
Cultural disequilibrium are never solved by political pronouncements, you dialogue but the problem with these two camps is that they are coming from political parties. Why didn’t the government advice on this?
Article 246(4) there goes. A traditional or cultural leader shall not join or take part in politics or exercise any administrative, legislative or executive powers of government. Its unfortunate that the problem with the two camps also has a manifestation of politics.
For this empase to end, there must be a clear and open dialogue initiated by the government, cultural council and the general assembly where the reviews of the Inzu Ya Masaba constitution should be critically interpreted and expanded.
If the issue is the constitution, then it must be amended in order to avoid any future embarrassments.
Lastly, the two sides were all allegedly elected and all have a right to claim for the thrown but again the mannerism of their elections, processes of elections and their delegates are what has made them not to accept the winner, therefore, since culture institution has new delegates, why can’t the the institution organize and preside over a new genuine, democratic elections based on a free and fair principles to solve this equation??
The three fundamental recommendations are critical and workable for the institution, but unless it benefits those playing these hard balls, the Ba’masaba will continue distancing, disassociating and demeaning any of the imposed cultural leader.
I rest my case
Former Deputy Minister incharge Of Production, Cooperatives and Marketing