By accident of history, foreigners pronounced Buganda as ‘Uganda’, marking the first Buganda factor in Uganda politics.

The Mengo power was crafted in the 1900 ‘Uganda Agreement’, from a chieftaincy of Busiro, Kyadondo and Mawokota, seventeen other counties were added to form the “Province of Buganda Kingdom”.

To the native leadership, Buganda Province was a state on its own and simply belonged to Uganda Protectorate, as part of British colonial over rule. It was a dangerous illusion which over the succeeding years prevented the emergency of a common Ugandan Nationalist pattern.

In the 1920s, when the colonial administration created the Legislative Council (Legco) for the Protectorate, Mengo opposed it and sought assurance that the Legco will not affect the 1900 Agreement, which Mengo believed to be the document which established their independence from the rest of the Protectorate.

When the idea to form a closer union for the three East African territories came up towards the end of the 1940’s and early 1950s, Mengo opposed it, regarding it as an opportunity to demonstrate their separatist sentiments, citing the sacredness of the 1900 Agreement with the colonial power.

Post 1950s when Ugandans began to organise themselves into political parties Mengo vetoed the move, and obtained from clan leaders a declaration that Political Parties “were in conflict with our good customs and traditions”, and threatened to expel from a clan any Muganda who associated with political parties. Lukiiko issued a statement that political parties were not recognised in Buganda.

It should be noted that while in exile in England in the 1950s, Mengo’s Kabaka Muteesa met another King called Seretse Khama, the King of the Bamwangato people in Bechuanaland (Botswana). Seretse Khama had watched Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana forming his party of “the veranda boys” whose influence was leading Ghana to its independence.

Khama is said to have warned Muteesa that the political situation in Africa was rapidly changing and that in view of the increasing rise of nationalism and pan-africanism of which Kwame Nkrumah’s future Ghana was to be the symbol, they will soon be no more monarchs in Africa. Thus Mengo’s fear of parties.

The winds of independence blowing over Uganda saw Mengo increasingly becoming a thorn in the flesh of nationalist politicians. While the rest of Uganda wanted to move together to independence, Mengo wanted Buganda to go it alone and on 31st December 1960, Mengo declared self-rule for Buganda from the rest of Uganda. However, within twenty four hours, the Mengo veto had collapsed.

Compromises were made to ensure that Mengo was carried along. Accordingly, nationalist political players of the day, succumbed to Mengo’s whims and pressure by according Mengo a full federal status. This special status and autonomy granted to Buganda, in essence rendered it a state within the state of Uganda.

These compromises however did not stop Mengo in 1966 from deciding “that this Lukiiko resolves not to recognise at all the Uganda Government whose headquarters must be moved away from Buganda soil”.

The veto power collapsed through what the courts declared in the case of ex-parte Matovu, as a successful revolution. At that hour of need Mengo found itself isolated and friendless. It had for a long time distanced itself from the rest of Uganda. The Buganda Kingdom went into frames, like Babylon, to raise no more.

History repeated itself however, in the spectacle of the Kayunga fiasco when the Country witnessed an attempt by the regrouped Mengo exercising veto against the President of Uganda and its cabinet. The veto collapsed and with it the closure of Radio yo bujjaja, only reopened later through Sabalwanyi’s magnanimity.

The regrouped Mengo, which has learnt nothing and forgotten everything, has in the recent past tried to exercise veto power over legislation that it did not favour. Attempt was made to stop the passing of the Land Act by mobilising large numbers of people to resist the Act. The veto failed to block the new land system.

Although the 1995 constitution provided for cultural institutions, Mengo openly supports any political party which promises “Federo/Ebyaffe”. Consequently, opposition parties in the days leading to any election would try to outshine each other in promising federo. Mengo has always exploited this election fever to the maximum. During the 2005-06 general election, Mengo was behind an open movement for federalism. However, the veto as usual miserably failed.

The 2021 election however, was different from this script. The sabalwanyi guided that a nationalist, social economic transformation approach must guide the party campaigns. Mengo’s response was to sponsor an opposition party to sweep Buganda and divide the vote outside Buganda denying any single party majority vote. The sabalwanyi principle won the hearts of Ugandans, sweeping the 2021 general election without Mengo’s vote.

Lacking foresight leadership, it’s possible that Mengo could be attempted at another futile exercise in the game of veto power. When history repeats itself, the first time it is a fuss, the second, a tragedy.

Dr. Sam Mayanja
Minister of State for Lands
smayanja@kaa.co.ug
www.kaa.co.ug

The interest that Ugandans have shown in the Karamoja iron sheets saga is a sign that they are fully behind the system in strengthening its defenses against acts of graft without compromise or fear of political reprisal from the masses.

I have seen Ugandans very excited about these developments which reassure them that the Government is serious about ridding the country of all parasitic tendencies, as President Yoweri Museveni often says.

Corruption scandals are a bitter pill to swallow for any Government but on the other hand, it’s necessary to be open and tough because it’s a self-cleansing process for societies. Although I don’t personally believe in the “big fish” syndrome, a system must be careful not to sacrifice the gains of the revolution for the comfort of a privileged few.

Ministers are well positioned individuals in which capacity they superintend over their dockets on behalf of His Excellency the President. Therefore, their actions must reflect the image and tendencies of the President. President Museveni’s stance on corruption and impropriety is well known; he is for a zero tolerance policy. Himself he is corrupt free and with age, he has complemented that with the dignity of a statesman and an elder. If from an early age his integrity was impeccable, what makes anyone think that as an elder he aims to lose his legacy?

Therefore, let it be known that the Museveni of today is so much wiser and more stringent about values that guarantee the future survival of society. His lieutenants; whether ministers, advisors, aides, commanders of security organs, Resident District Commissioners (RDCs), managers of departments and agencies, and the like, should read into this with depth and clarity.

The message is strong enough and no one should hold a grudge against the Appointing Authority if caught in a trap!

Government is serious and the responsible organs can “bite” when provided with requisite grounds to act. At least, that has been seen in the mabaati affair; police, court and Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPPs) have proven worthy and relevant to the cause. Many a time, it’s state organs that disappoint the aims and objectives of the President and Ugandans at large when the occupants sleep on their jobs. With the right occupants, safeguards against all forms of irregularity are in full time operation.

Although members of the public tend to think that the Government is asleep or nonchalant to corruption, the truth is that a lot is happening, sometimes out of public sight. It’s just that some cases attract more attention and public interest than others. The mabaati issue is one such that has ruled the media space and airwaves for over a month now. But it’s not that there are no other cases.

The Anti-Corruption Court is very active, as well other organs handling graft cases at various stages. In fact, one of the reasons why it is thought that there is so much corruption in Uganda is due to the fact that there is so much exposure, even of unconcluded cases or plain allegations that are yet to be subjected to the due process of the law. We also know there have been convictions such as the one of former State Minister of Labour, Hon. Kabafunzaki in the Aya hotels controversy, that of the Obeys and Kunsas from Public Service, and more convicts now in jail. What is true is that all are equal before the law; the process is the same. Even better, the higher up one is in national hierarchy, the easier it is to hold such a person liable for their wrong actions because those positions are held in trust of the masses and the closer to the seat of power, the greater the test of integrity and loyalty to the ideals of the system.

The excuse of the Government being unresponsive to corruption does not make sense because the Government is the first victim of corruption; when thieves steal public resources, they frustrate service delivery which in turn makes governance difficult. The corrupt are enemies of the Government, and not for the Government!

Also, Corruption is not about stealing money only, or in billions. Diversion of material things, even in small quantities, is corruption. Even just a nail (omusumaali)! Cumulatively, if a person diverted a nail in one place and another did the same in another or diverted a few nails over time, if nothing is done about that “small act of corruption”, eventually a huge financial loss is occasioned on Government coffers. Don’t forget that a nail missing at a critical point or join on a structure can cause it to crumble!

So, while we point fingers at those caught taking billions or those carrying off heavy loads to their homes, we should care not to divert small things from public stores under the guise of them being of nominal value. If something is not allocated for your benefit, don’t touch it!

Government officials should also learn or remember to always requisition for anything through the appropriate channels. They should know where to go to lobby or requisition for support and within the law or their terms of employment; no taking shortcuts, exerting pressure or influencing processes. Because, if, for example, a Minister doesn’t know how to go about processes, how will the ordinary person fare? Corruption starts when individuals think of themselves smarter than the system or more entitled than others. However, that’s clearly at one’s own instant risk!

Faruk Kirunda is the Deputy Presidential Press Secretary
Contact: faruk.kirunda@statehouse.go.ug
0776980486/0783990861

It is mandatory for District Land Boards to account to the District Council and consequently to the people of Uganda, how they handled matters of land in the District for the previous year.

Non accountability amounts to misbehavior, misconduct or incompetence and is a ground to remove a member of the Board from office by the District Council on the recommendation of the District Executive Committee under section 58 (2) (b) and (c) of the Land Act.

There is no way the Ministry of Land Housing and Urban Development can implement its monitoring and valuation function in regards to land management in the Country without these annual reports being submitted by the District Land Board.

The annual reports must contain, among other things, a summary of all transactions undertaken by a District Land Board in the year, summary of all Board sittings, list of achievements and challenges faced by the Board and proposed recommendations.

District Land Boards are a creature of the constitution whose functions are set up both in the constitution itself and the Land Act.

These functions are among other things to “to hold and allocate land in the District which is not owned by any person or authority”.

This means that land owned by government or bibanja holders is not available for the District Land Board to allocate. Also not available for allocation by the Boards is land covered under article 237 (2) (b) of the constitution and section 44 (1) of the Land Act. This land includes land which is a protected nature lake, rivers, ground water, natural ponds, natural streams, wetlands, forest reserves, national parks and any other land reserved for ecological and touristic purposes.

Should a District Land Board enter into or undertakes or concludes any transaction or allocates land mentioned above, that transaction is void by virtue of section 59 (1a) of the Land Act, as amended. The Land Act gives Commissioner Land Registration under section 91 to cancel a land title issued to such a land without referring the matter to a Court or District land Tribunal.

The District land Board is mandated to exercise the role of lessor and to exercise the powers of a controlling authority in respect of leases granted out of public land then controlled under the repealed 1969 Public Land Act. In this regard a District Land Board is obligated to honour all the conditions and covenants in the existing leases including those implied under the repealed Public Land Act 1969.

In the exercise of its duties a District Land Boards must abide by the Guidelines on the Administration of the land under the Land Act, Cap 227 issued on 12th July 2005.

Under those guidelines, a District Land Board in exercising the powers of a lessor is prohibited from automatically re-entering a lessee’ land and provides that renewal and extension of leases on initial and full term for all citizens is automatic.

The guidelines also makes it clear that where a lease on full term expires and the former lessee applies for renewal of the lease, the District shall charge a premium of 10% of the unimproved value of the land. When a lease shall be renewed for a shorter term, the lessee shall pay a proportionate premium. Where there is a variation of lease regarding user, premium and ground rent will be determined to reflect the changes.

It is important for all to be aware that article 237 (5) of the constitution allows any Ugandan citizen who had been granted a lease out of public land to convert it into freehold in accordance with the law setup by Parliament. This Law was passed by Parliament under section 28 (1) of the Land Act cap. 227 and the District land Board are obliged to do the conversion to freehold if a citizen of Uganda applies.

All these issues and the performance of the District Land Boards in fulfilment of the Law are covered under the annual reports which the District Land Boards must issue annually in compliance with section 60 (3) of the Land Act.

All the confusion of District Land Boards allocating public land, land with bibanja holding, protected forests, wetlands and wildlife areas, re-entering citizens’ leases which have expired when they are not supposed, refusing to extend leases when this is automatic for all citizens, exacting lease premiums beyond the 10% of the unimproved value of the land etc. etc., are all as a result of defiance of section 60 (3) by refusing to account, despite repeated reminders by the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development.

District Land Boards which have failed to account as required by law, have no legitimacy to continue in office for the succeeding year. In effect the District Executive Committees and District Councils must by 1st January 2023 disband all District Land Boards which have not submitted accountability and insure that new ones are put in place. Ugandans are a decent people, they deserve accountability from those chosen to manage their most important asset-Land.

Dr. Sam Mayanja

Minister of State for Lands

smayanja@kaa.co.ug

www.kaa.co.ug