![]() |
|
THE WRITER: Waibale Snr. |
How should the public view Mengo�s five demands for constitutional review?
With Paul Waibale Senior
THE fact that Mengo is preparing to make copies of the document Katikkiro Joseph Ssemogerere presented to the Ssempebwa commission available for members of the public to buy is a welcome development. It is only fair that those who enthusiastically support the proposals in the document and those who oppose any of them should be sufficiently informed. This should enable them to base their verdicts on logic and reason and not on emotion and prejudice.
My view is that blind rejection of federo and other proposals in Buganda�s document based on prejudice is as retrogressive as blind support for the proposals based on emotion. In order to steer clear of that unpalatable course, all interested parties should study the document, analyse its contents and subject it objective debate. We do not, in the 21st century, have room for the political gimmicks of l966 when the pigeon-hole constitution was endorsed by Members of Parliament before they had even had an opportunity to observe what the colour of its cover was. So the MPs debated the constitution they had never seen and accorded it overwhelming support.
In the course of the debate, a UPC hardliner had the audacity to stupidly assert: �I have not yet had the opportunity to read the new constitution. But I know it is very good because it is being introduced by Dr Obote.� It is equally stupid for any one to endorse or reject Buganda�s document basing his verdict on the fact that Mengo is its source.
By the way, I promised last week that I would this time round take a look at other proposals in the Buganda document in respect of matters such as the 9,000 sq. miles and the rights and privileges that should be accorded to traditional leaders.
Perhaps the most pragmatic question to ask in respect of the 9,000 sq. miles is: who is the owner. To whom does this property actually belong? History has it that during the colonial era that l!
and was
held by the British in trust. That was on behalf of the multitude of Baganda who were not awarded mailo land as was the case with members of the royal family and chiefs of various grades.
Upon the advent of independence, the departing colonial government handed that property to the Buganda Kingdom which administered it through the Buganda Land Board. When Obote extinguished the kingdoms in l967, he dumped the 9,000 sq. miles under the Uganda Land Commission. Currently, however, that property is administered by the district land boards responsible for the areas where parts of that land happens to be located.
I submit that although the 9,000 sq. miles have changed hands in administration, it has never changed ownership. Neither Obote�s unilateral transfer of that land to the Uganda Land Commission nor the vesting of its administration under district land boards has the effect of negating the claim of Buganda Kingdom as the right institution to hold it trust for the people of Buganda.
In my contention, Buganda�s position regarding the 9,000 sq. miles vis-avis the relationship with the Uganda government is identical to that of other properties owned by the kingdom such as Mengo Lubiri, Bulange, Kasubi Tombs, Kabaka�s Lake, et cetra. It follows, therefore, that Buganda�s ownership cannot be defused by mere fears that the Buganda Kingdom might introduce measures that violate the interests of non-Baganda occupants. There is no evidence that such a thing has ever happened and there is in any case ample room for legal guarantees against any adverse eventualities.
It has been argued in some quarters that since the district land boards are also institutions operating within the Buganda Kingdom, therefore the interests of the kingdom are all catered for. I am not impressed by that argument. To me, it is absurd as robbing Peter in order to pay Paul. The Buganda Land Board is the right home for the 9,000 sq. miles, and there should not be any unnecessary tug-of-war over it.
As for the proposal that!
traditi
onal leaders should be exempted from taxation, I nurse the view that since the traditional rulers do not have any significant sources of revenue, and the honourable status they hold in society, they should be spared the ordeal of having to respond to demands from the tax collector. After all diplomats enjoy that privilege despite being recipients of fairly fat remuneration. I would not agree to the blanket proposal that they should be immune to criminal prosecution. But I have no objection if they are accorded immunity in respect of minor missdeameners, such as parking in the wrong place. Ends
Published on: Monday, 17th February, 2003 |
