Category Archives: All

At the 2012 London Conference on federalism attended by Ugandans from all walks of life, the concept meant different things to different participants. However, there was agreement in principle that it was better than the current centralized government. It was decided that studies, consultations and debates be conducted on varieties and contexts of federalism to enable Ugandans take an informed decision.

As reported elsewhere, federalism is increasingly becoming popular. It is also being tailored to suit different situations. Thus there isn’t one model that suits all situations in time and space. We have already examined the cases of Belgium, Indonesia, United Kingdom and Switzerland. In this article, we examine the case of Nigeria.

Nigeria is a diverse country. However, for colonial administrative convenience the northern and southern parts were joined in 1914 to form Nigeria although there were objections. Ethno-regional tensions led to the division of southern Nigeria into the Eastern and Western regions in 1939. In 1946, Nigeria was divided into Northern, Eastern and Western regions. In 1954 a constitution was adopted making Nigeria a federation while giving more powers to the regions to accommodate their demands, making the model sound more a confederation than a federation. The federal system was entrenched at independence in 1960 and hailed at home and abroad as a model for Africa.

During the colonial days north and south Sudan were treated differently. The northern part was developed while the southern part was neglected in all areas of human endeavor.

As independence approached, it was decided that the two parts must be kept together. But these were two countries in one and problems emerged resulting in a mutiny in the south in 1955 on the eve of independence.

To the economic and social marginalization was added the policy of Islamizing and Arabizing the south. Christian and political activities were restricted and outlawed respectively. Educated Southerners fled to Uganda and Congo. In 1963 a resistance movement was launched under the name of Sudan National Union (SANU). The armed wing – the Anya-nya was formed as well and a devastating civil war began.

Through the auspices of the Ethiopian government an agreement between the Sudan government and the southern movement was reached in 1972 in which the south was accorded a significant measure of autonomy within a unitary state. The three southern provinces formed one region with legislature and executive branches of government. While Arabic remained the official language of Sudan, southern Sudan would use English as the principal language. Religious freedom and control of education in the south provided safeguards against enforced Arabization. Most of the Anya-nya fighters were integrated into the national army. A special plan would be launched to promote accelerated development in the south. While peace returned to South Sudan following the Agreement, development did not take place.

Somaliland was a British colony that was basically left untouched culturally and economically. Its main economic activity was cattle herding and export of beef. Ishaq is the dominant clan.

On July 1, 1960 British Somaliland joined Italian Somalia to form an independent state of Somalia as a Republic.

Somaliland is a poor area with livestock herding as its main economic activity. The colonial administration introduced few changes and independence did not improve the area as development activities were concentrated in the south especially in the area around the capital of Mogadishu. Somaliland was also politically marginalized because the Ishaq clan had its nationalistic organization and did not join the Somali Youth League that played a major role in independent Somalia. Ibrahim Egal, the first prominent politician from the north became prime minister in 1967 only to be overthrown in 1969. After that the relations between the north and the south deteriorated.

Eritrea was an Italian colony for fifty years. Italy was defeated in World War II and lost Eritrea. By the UN resolution Eritrea was joined to Ethiopia in 1952 under federal arrangement despite opposition from Muslim Eritreans who wanted independence (Christians wanted unification with Ethiopia). Ethiopia was responsible for foreign affairs, defense, finance, commerce and ports. Eritrea was allowed to form its own government and assembly to take care of local affairs. Eritrea had its own flag, official languages of Arabic and Tigrinya.

Haile Selassie who claimed that Eritrea or parts of it had once belonged to the Ethiopian empire interpreted the federal compromise as a step towards unification. Ethiopia gradually eroded what Eritrea had gained – political rights, trade unions, independent press.

In 1958 the Eritrean flag was discarded. In 1959 the Ethiopian code was extended to Eritrea and political parties were banned, trade union was eliminated, press censorship was introduced and Amharic language replaced Arabic and Tigrinya.

In 1962 Eritrea was annexed to Ethiopia as a province under centralized authority. The Muslims that numbered fifty percent of the population objected and initiated a long and devastating war of liberation.

As we prepare to replace the failed NRM government that has rejected federalism, Ugandans have been discussing the benefits of federalism by examining theory and practice. We have examined the experiences in the United Kingdom, Belgium and Indonesia.

The purpose of the debate is to see what is suitable for Uganda because federalism comes in many varieties and contexts. What is pleasantly clear is that federalism is increasing. As of 2008, there were 28 federal states – five of them from Africa. What does the Swiss federalism tell us?

In 1291 three cantons (a canton is a state of the Swiss confederation) formed a league – a kind of constitution – initially for defense purposes. The three cantons were regarded as a unit. Between 1332 and 1352 four cantons were added to that unit. It was controlled by a federal diet (legislative assembly) while retaining much autonomy for the cantons. Political and security considerations drew the cantons closer together.

By the 16^th century, the confederation was still very loose but the number of cantons had increased to thirteen. Each canton sent two representatives to the federal diet. Through diplomatic efforts the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia that ended the thirty years’ war recognized Swiss independence.

We offer below our preliminary thoughts to be updated as developments unfold. This is done to help Ugandans at home and abroad to consult and take informed decision to support or not to support Sejjusa and his infant organization hurriedly established two months ago with carefully selected individuals.

1. The timing of Sejjusa’s defection is suspect, coming so soon after NRM government expressed deep concern about the growing strength of the opposition in the diaspora;

2. Fearing that there might be disturbances and obstructions at the conference launching his Freedom and Unity Front (FUF) organization in London in December 2013, Sejjusa issued private invitations to carefully selected individuals instead of a public invitation which would have attracted many participants. Either by accident or change of mind at the conference one participant raised disturbing issues about Sejjusa and was forced out of the conference hall, giving the organization a memorable bad start;

3. To disguise the true purpose of his mission, FUF has been described as ecumenical but there is nothing religious in the Manifesto that has many deficits as outlined already and posted on face book and Ugandans at Heart Forum among other channels of communication;

David Sejusa (formerly Tinyefuza) has refused to answer legitimate questions. Either he is unwilling or unable to do so presumably to avoid implicating himself in what has gone wrong in Uganda over the last 30 years in which he played a pivotal role in the military, security and legislative branches of government.

Sejusa gives the impression that we are still living in the 17^th and 18^th centuries that were dominated by absolutism, scheme of things and divine right of rulers that considered themselves as God’s representative on earth and were answerable only to Him and not to the people they ruled.

Let us remind Sejusa that we are living in the age of Enlightenment dominated by reason, dissent, asking questions and demanding satisfactory answers. Therefore setting the clock back isn’t an option. The earlier the questions asked are answered the better for Sejusa and his FUF.

Attacking others using unfortunate language in the hope that pressure to answer questions will be reduced could end up revealing Sejusa’s Achilles’ heel.

Meanwhile it would be helpful if Sejusa could present evidence that he is a refugee registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Failure to do so could be interpreted that Sejusa is still working for NRM government to destroy the opposition in the diaspora.

Reading the Manifesto gives the impression that it was prepared in a hurry by a narrow range of specialists without practical experience. Some areas especially in the social and demographic sectors, regional and external relations appear to have been forgotten or remembered as the Manifesto was going to the press. For example, the East African economic integration and political federation are just mentioned in passing without indicating the benefits and costs to Uganda. The economic sector does not refer to the general shortcomings of the Washington Consensus launched in 1987 and why and how it came about and what was sacrificed in the process.

The Manifesto is largely a description of what has gone wrong in Uganda since NRM came to power in 1986. There is little mention of what needs to be done to right the wrongs with virtually no mention of how it is to be done. The focus on institutions and separation of powers among the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government is not enough. In the absence of capable and patriotic leadership and democratic governance institutions can’t work.

This is the third time that Baganda have suddenly demanded independence from Uganda. On December 30, 1960 after Baganda failed to agree with the colonial secretary on a formula for independence acceptable to them, Lukiiko decided to secede. On May 20, 1966 Lukiiko once again demanded independence by giving the central government an ultimatum to quit Buganda on or before May 30, 1966.

The colonial government ignored the decision and went ahead with elections in 1961 for the independence of Uganda which the Democratic Party (DP) won under the leadership of Ben Kiwanuka and became the first prime minister of self-governing Uganda. The second decision for independence was interpreted by the central government as a rebellion that had to be prevented, resulting in the 1966/67 political and constitutional crisis that abrogated the 1962 constitution under which Buganda enjoyed a federal status.

Since the abrogation of the independence constitution, Baganda have consistently demanded its restoration and return of the federal system of governance. The demand received considerable attention at home and abroad including a debate on Radio Munansi for two consecutive weekends.

Buganda was founded around A.D 1200. It consisted of three counties of Busiro, Mawokota and Kyadondo.

Baganda were originally divided into six clans, each with a separate totem. Although the six clans were equal, the leader of Civet Cat (Ffumbe) clan was leader of all clans, making him the first leader of Buganda.

The first Kabaka of Buganda was Kato Kintu. Kabaka Kintu deprived clan heads of their political and judicial powers, leaving them with cultural powers only. He created thirteen clans to counter the original six and made himself the leader of all clan heads (Ssabataka).

Baganda were divided into royals and non-royals. The non-royals were subdivided into three groups: clan leaders (Bataka), civil/political leaders (Bakungu), and peasants (Bakopi).

All the land was entrusted to the king for use by all without discrimination. (The 1900 Buganda Agreement between Buganda and Britain changed this arrangement giving land to the Kabaka, saza chiefs, few prominent Baganda and the Crown, leaving peasants who constitute the majority of Baganda out in the cold. Land ownership in Uganda including in Buganda is currently changing hands once again). The Kabaka was supreme ruler.