KAMPALA – If you noticed from my heading, I have been very cagey in the choice of my words lest am misunderstood by those with a contrary view.
When the idea of fronting a cultural leader for the sub region first emerged, it took months for the promoters to reach a compromise. Elgon sub region has a number of controversial people who behave like the rhinoceros. Once they make a stand on a certain subject, they move in a straight line, diverting them is next to impossible.
I am intentionally using the Elgon sub region in place of Bugisu or Bamasaaba to avoid the use of the word Bagisu.
It is apparent that some people within Bugisu don’t want to be called Bagisu and for that reason alone they have coined names such as Mumaasaaba or Bamasaaba.
And who knows, maybe they are not Bagisu. I imagine that must have been part of the confusion the likes of Wadada Nabudere, Situma Munyanda, and Justice Masika among others had to deal with before coming up with the idea of forming a unifying cultural institution.
After several disagreements, the elders struck a compromise that our cultural institution be called Inzu Ya Masaba-House of Masaaba. The title is derived from the name Masaaba, a man said to have first settled on the land we call Bugisu or Bugisu sub region today. Masaaba is said to have had three male children to wit Mwambu, Mubuya and Wanale. It is these children who are said to have scattered and occupied the land that now call Mbale, Namisindwa, Manafwa, Bududa, Bulambuli and Sironko Districts. This school of thought however has erased the traditional story of Mundu and Sera said to have been the first Bagisu leaving a lacuna to the real origins of the Bagisu or the Bamasaaba.
I can confirm that the elders who began the idea of our cultural institutions had good intentions and hoped the establishment would unite the people with an accepted universal leader. These elders had no idea they were laying a foundation for future problems. One of the fundamental mistakes was that they failed to ally with legitimate clans as the basic building block of a common cultural head. Instead, they named the original sub-counties as clans. We should not forget that even before the coming of our colonial masters, our people did not have a King or even a chief partly due to their big headedness. Our people were instead organized under clans and family heads, not even the expansive Wanga Kingdom or Omuyinga could subdue or rule over them as one ethnic group.
Matters were compounded when it came to the registration and drafting of a constitution for Inzu Ya Masaaba institution, it was registered as a company limited by guarantee in total disregard to Article 246(3) (a) of the 1995 constitution which regards such an establishment as a corporate sole. That is the first mistake that needed a review. The Ministry of Gender and culture under which Traditional and Cultural institutions fall does not have the power to control affairs of companies such as the one under which Inzu Ya Masaaba was created.
It was all roses when the descendants of Mubuya and Wanale took office of Umukuuka and served their respective five years each. The bickering began when it came to the descendants of Mwambu to serve the institution Inzu Ya Masaaba. From the onset when the outgoing Umukuuka handed over power to a one John Wagabyalire, the fighting began. The process was immediately challenged and before long, some people met and also elected Jude Mudoma as Umukuuka. Since then it has been fight after fight, none is willing to step aside yet both proclaim to have been validly elected. Initially, the government has stood its ground not to gazette any of them but I am told a hard decision is about to be taken.
I personally want to believe it is the Inzu Ya Masaaba constitution that contributed to some of the disputes we are having as regards the legitimate Umukuuka. The Inzu Ya Masaaba constitution mentions the three children of Masaaba and also underlines the so called corresponding clans against their names. When referring to Mwambu, his other title is Mugisu and that is the genesis of the contention. Many believe the title Mugisu was a preserve of Mwambu the eldest son of Masaaba. They therefore don’t feel obliged to be referred to as such because they are not direct descendants of Mwambu also known as Mugisu. The reasoning is weak but it explains why we cannot all be called Bagisu in preference for Bamasaaba.
Behind the scenes, we all have national identity cards and passport which we only acquired having filled a form with a tribal affiliation and I guess we all filed in Mugisu. As of today, both Mudoma Jude and John Wagabyalire are holding out to Titular heads of a people without a tribe, Bamasaaba is just a title. The rift between the people who claim to have a common origin has reached a point of divergence and I believe the government needs to intervene and take a stand. For us, Umukuuka or Umuguga means nothing but chief grandfather.
The latest meeting to deliberate on the subject matter was commenced by the Minister of Gender and culture who delegated Ambassador Wamimbi to convene a meeting of the so called 26 clan heads. The 26 clans like I have said are no existent as they were the original sub counties of Elgon region. What is confusing me is that the 26 clans that the minister mentioned are for Inza Ya Masaba and not Bugisu Cultural institution that many are advocating for. It therefore means Inzu Ya Masaaba if at all erroneous voted and confirmed Jude Mike Mudoma to run the affairs of Bugisu cultural institution. The two institutions are not related and are not one and the same.
The Wamimbi led meeting took place on July, 26th and allegedly confirmed Jude Mudoma as Umukuuka. As usual, the process is being challenged administratively and am told has already found space in the courts of law. The fight among these two contenders is far from over and will have far reaching consequences. Let us not forget it is more than three years since the term of the former Umukuuka expired. With this endless bickering, the five years allocated to the descendants of Mwambu may come to an end without a substantive Umukuuka in office. The secret behind the fight is in respect of a portion of land on which Bugema barracks where the government has allegedly set some money aside compensate the cultural institution.
To be honest, I do not understand why some indigenous people within Bugisu actually feel offended to be called Bagisu. Could there be an undercover plan to create another tribe called Bamasaaba or the confusion is intended to divert attention so that the descendants of Mwambu fail to provide Umukuuka. Truth be told, so long as the third Schedule of the Constitution which recognized Bagisu as a tribe as at 01st February 1926 is not amended, we will never be called Bamasaaba. With this at the back of their mind, the Ministry of Gender & culture will have no option but to recognize Bugisu Cultural institution and not Inzu Ya Masaaba, it s break away.
Many of us are too young to know why and how the people who live in the elgon sub region were called Bagisu; we have no idea whether the naming was by default, omission or accident but what is important is that these wars are not taking us anywhere. When Article 246(2) of the 1995 constitution mentions a community, it means a tribe. Article 246 was not an open, a cultural institution status will not be granted to a non-existent tribe and a tribe cannot have two cultural leaders. The import of Article 246(6) is very clear in so far as it says a cultural leader is a person 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 leader.
I wish to inform government that a cultural leader in Bugisu or among the Bamasaaba is a new creation and serves no meaningful purpose. If his presence or the lack of such a leader is bound to cause of divisions, we would rather do without one like it is in Ankole. After all, if we were to follow the law in its strict terms, you will learn that the government is wasting a lot of resources and time on cultural or traditional leaders without a lawful justification.
The law under Article 246(5) only provided for restoration and not the creation of Traditional or Cultural leaders who existed before the coming into force of the 1995 constitution. Unlike Buganda which crowned its King in 1993, the rest of the traditional and cultural institutions were still in a limbo having been banned in the 1960s. These people are in fact occupying cultural offices illegally and are eating tax payer’s money for free. Soon we may be tempted to petition the constitutional court for a declaration on the subject.
Wadada Rogers is a commentator on political, legal and social issues. Wadroger @yahoo.ca
