Rwenzururu king dilemmaBy Charles EtukuriJan 5, 2004
|
Charles Wesley Mumbere is back in the country and at the centre of a kingship row among the Bakonzo of western Uganda.
Two claimants have laid out their claim to the throne: Prince Swaleh Tibamwenda and Charles Mumbere.
Mumbere's claim to kingship is based on the fact that he is heir to Isaya Mukirania who was the brainchild of Rwenzururu kingdom. Whereas Tibamwenda claim rests on the fact that his father George Mubinga Basikania ruled from 1948 before passing the throne over to him three years ago.
Another group led by Hon Chrispus Kiyonga opposes the whole structure.
Press war has become defining elements in the war between the pro and anti Obusinga camps. Recent press reports by the anti-Obusinga stated that Mumbere was no royalty since his clan is the Abahira clan that produces only traditional healers, on the other attacks have been leveled on the Kiyonga camp as that belonging to commone
rs not
worth talking to.
The issue of re-establishing the Kingdom came up for a discussion in 1994 during the Constituent Assembly debate that led to the 1995 Constitution. It failed and it was even reported in a section of the press that a private army was being trained in waiting for the establishment of the kingdom.
The Kiyonga camp maintains that the Rwenzururu Movement was proscribed as an illegal rebel organisation. There argument is premised on Article 246 clause 6 which defines traditional/cultural leader to mean a king or similar traditional leader or cultural leader by whatever title, who derives allegiance from the fact of birth or descent in accordance with the customs, traditions, usage or consent of the people led by that traditional or cultural leader
Ssempebwa Report on constitutional review also made a finding that "it is acknowledged by all parties that the Rwenzururu Movement was a political struggle. It is not clear how the struggle took on a c
ultural
dimension to the extent of transforming into demands for the recognition of the Obusinga.
Since there was no recognised territorial area which might have acted as the jurisdiction of the institution the Obusinga was not formed together with other constitutional heads of districts in 1963".
This means that there is no legitimacy on either parties claim for the Obusinga and the Kiyonga camp could have an upper hand in law. This argument seems to be the only thing that keeps the two pro-Obusinga camps united. They have openly come out to fight the anti-Kiyonga camp, which has maintained that the Bakonzo had no king.
All the parties have stepped their campaigns for and against the Obusinga. The Mumbere camp seems to be getting the upper hand since they have been given an audience with the President and they were scheduled to meet him on Sunday, but the appointment was pushed forward to Monday last at Rwakitura.
The anti-Kiyonga forces within State Ho
use seem
to have found an ample opportunity to fight Kiyonga politically. That possibly explains why Kiyonga finds it comfortable going to court than having to resort to political resolution of the matter.
Government had attempted to resolve the question as was reflected in the commissioning of research by the President's Office into the Rwenzururu and Obusinga issue. Although the findings of the research were broadly supportive of Obusinga, very strong opposition to the institution remains.
The matter remains as controversial as it ought to be and is taking anew dimension which might make the little remote districts of Kasese and Bundibugyo more divided and weakened.
It may also have an effect of having the powers of the political stakeholders more reduced than before if it�s not resolved early. |
� 2005 The Monitor Publications.
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want -
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
% UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
