|
Kavuma�s Reasons To Shift Capital Are Na�ve
According to Kalangala MP, Ruth Kavuma, Uganda�s capital must be transferred from Kampala to Entebbe so that Kampala, where the headquarters of the Buganda Kingdom are located remains part of Buganda. Frankly, that is a statement dispatched with deep sentiments but propagated by shallow logic. There are very good reasons why the Constitutional Assembly (CA) made the constitutional provision whereby the capital of Uganda is not tied to the apron strings of Buganda. It is in pursuit of that objective that Kampala was enacted as an independent district, which is not subject to the unpredictable whims of Buganda�s traditionally rigid culture. Sentiments such as those expressed by Ruth Kavuma � the attitude that Kampala must be part of Buganda because the kingdom�s headquarters are located there � are reminiscent of the controversial period in Uganda when the Buganda Likiiko passed a resolution directing then President Milton Obote to �remove your government from Buganda soil�.
That was the beginning of a series of grevieous repercussions of which a repeat performance is most unpalatable.
Admittedly, capitals have been moved, as Kavuma did point out in her address to the Natural Resources Committee of Parliament, in various countries.
But I hasten to add that such transfers of capital cities are not precipitated by trivial considerations such as the satisfaction of the sentimental aspirations of one particular group. The capital of Germany was re-transferred from Bonn back to Berlin after the collapse of the Berlin Wall following the reunion of the two Germanys. The reason was that Bonn was a small city with insufficient facilities such as appropriate accommodation for offices. In fact, when I visited West Germamy before the reunification in l977, many Germans referred to Bonn as �our capital village�. Likewise, Malawi�s capital was moved from Blantyre to Lilongwe because the former was too squeezed and had little room for expansion while t!
he latte
r was a vast area available for extensive development. Kavuma contends that since the transfer of capitals has been done in other countries it can be done in Uganda. She adds th� in the 1960s and can be �resurrected�. Her history is distorted. What happened in the �60s was not merely floating an idea of transferring the capital. The capital was actually moved from Entebe to Kampala, although until aa few years ago one or two ministries still had their
headquarters in Entebbe. The circumstances that dictated the transfer are persistently existent. So, one must not talk of an idea being floated in the �60s. What happened was
that the implementation of decision to move the capital from Entebbe to Kampala was executed.
Kavuma�s argument that by moving the capital from Kampala to Entebe the government would be facilitating other parts of the country.
If the aim of moving the capital is to disseminate development, then it should not be moved to Entebbe, a mere 20 miles away. It should be moved to distant places such as Gulu, Mbale, or Fort Portal. In any case, how many times shall we have to move the capital in order to facilitate development in various parts of the country?
Interestingly, for MP Nsubuga Nsambu, the question of moving the capital is not the most important. For him, the nagging point is that the Baganda are not benefiting from taxes collected from users of the Kabaka�s 9000 sq miles of land. Therefore, so he argues, Kampala must be part of Buganda so that the Baganda can gain the benefit to which they are entitled. I, for one, do not see how collecting taxes from the Kabaka�s land is affected by Kampala being outside Buganda.
Every landlord in the city is entitled to collect whatever taxes or fees due to them.
In any case, not all the 9000 sq miles are located in Kampala, so how does the restoration of Kampala as part of Buganda help those who want to benefit from the Kabaka�s land? Ends
Published on: Monday, 23rd December, 2002 |
