By Steven Masiga
(Official Spokesperson of Umukuka)
BUGISU
Allow me give our response as a cultural institution on several points raised by Former Ambassador to Somalia Simon Mulongo and now in private life.
Hon Mulongo raises about two points that he builds his premises on, firstly whether Umukuka’s term ends in 2025 or 2028 and secondly on whether inzuyamasaba could be recast as Umukuka of Bugisu.
Whereas I recognize that Hon Mulongo raises legitimate questions touching on Governance of the cultural institution, however as a cultural institution we fundamentally disagree with the entire body phyisc of his submission, which is tainted with some level of bias as usual, for example questioning the statutory authority of minister to take note of the currigendum.
It is trited Law in uganda, that the current Cultural and traditional Leadership in Uganda is a creature of the 1995 constitution, the previous Governments having Lost interest in traditional and cultural institutions in Uganda in the 1960s, in which many kings were arrested and humiliated on the orders of the State.
The current Cultural and traditional Leadership in Uganda and Bugisu in particular was brought by law and can only be taken away by law, conversely what is given by law can only be taken away by law.
In one of the Leading English cases court made a very pleasing ruling which am compelled to lift here, by stating openly that anything that claims to be Law must be found in the Law books.
I expect Hon Mulongo to promote the Ugandan constitution in which he participated in enacting which consequently gave birth to the current cultural Leaders Act than promoting an impugned inzuyamasaba constitution which was made by political renegades who had even refused to debate the 1995 constitution, who dressed them with authority to make laws for Bugisu.
In Uganda law making is the preserve of Government (parliament) under Art 79(1)(2) and Local Governments under Sec 38. Can anybody cite for me which section was premised on to enact the impugned inzuyamasaba constitution?
As a former Constituent Assembly Delegate and therefore Law maker, I would have been very excited to see Hon Mulongo promoting constitutionalism as the current constitution of Uganda is one of his” babies “but this is not a surprise to us at all;, because If I recollect well in 1994, I was entering senior one and I have a fairly good memory of what transpired in the constituent assembly.
Hon Mulongo and his Bumbo group chose to weaken and emasculate the entire Bugisu region by creating another tribe only familiar to him and his Bumbo cacoon, and when I see how Hon Mulongo is shedding crocodile tears on the supposed unity of bamasaba, am left in stitches.
Indeed human beings are mechanistic and unreliable. Mr Mulongo is like someone who voluntarily undergoes a vasectomy method in family planning and then turns around to harass his own wife for not bearing him children.
In jurisprudence, there are two propositions of law one being lex lata, which is the Law in action and lex ferenda which is the Law that people desire, but not in action.
One of the attributes of positive Law is that it is enacted by the state and that is the Law anyway. However, that remains the law and can’t be wished away by any legal pessimists and Bumbo Byzantinists.
If Hon Mulongo and other groups that were in the Constituent Assembly had chosen to introduce Bamasaba as a tribe, some of this skirmishes would be around.
However, when one analyses the drafting history of law making; there are reasons that were based to say we are Bagisu and not babukusu or bamasaba legally.
Therefore Hon Mulongo ‘s misguided cultural commentary should be ignored and Hon Mulongo should make a formal apology to Government, Umukuka and Bamasaba for calling bamasaba to rise up against Umukuka.
In calling on Bamasaba to raise up against Umukuka, he tactfully left his own kin and kith; the Babukusu where he belongs. This is typical of the wakaima (hare) who collectively agreed with hyena that they should slaughter and eat their mothers beginning with that of hyena, and after hyena had slaughtered his mother and eaten with hare, hare in turn hid his own mother and was not eaten.
We shall not allow you Hon Mulongo to call on our people to raise up against their own Umukuka, conversely your veiled attacks on bukuka are overt attacks on this Government that brought bukuka through the current legal framework.
Art 3 of the Ugandan constitution mandates all of us as Ugandans to protect the Constitution and we shall collectively, do so as a community to defend umukuka and Bukuka against your Bumbo group.
Since most of this matters are before court, I encourage you not to act contrary to Art 28(12) including acting speculatively about what court should do in the upcoming mediations that many of us pushed for.
