The claim for the 9,000 Square Miles of land, or ‘Mailo Akenda’, supposedly owed to Buganda Kingdom by the Uganda state will endure as the starkest symbol of the idleness and indolence of key sections of Uganda’s political class, more so the self-perpetuating oligarchy at Mengo and its retainers.
I make this observation in light of the never-ending clamour by Mengo officials demanding for the ‘return’ of Buganda Kingdom ‘properties’ which include the aforementioned land. One has to also make note of the centrality of those demands in the opportunistic alliances that are always rustled up between seekers of the country’s high political offices and Mengo notables every electoral season.
Yet, one also, has to worry about the unnecessary complications that are likely to arise in the management of the country’s future political transitions especially when key constituencies seem determined to always keep advancing such specious demands. Even the most disinterested and distant glance at the brief history of Uganda will reveal that the waning even by an iota, of the present firm hold on the country’s renowned rabies will precipitate petty horse-trading that can only promise to lead to a tragic meltdown if no attempt is made to expose the hollowness and shallowness of such bogeys as the so-called Akenda.
The question then is what is this ‘Mailo Akenda’? Where is it located? Does it really exist and indeed has it actually ever existed? If it existed and continues to exist, how legitimate are Mengo’s claims to its ownership and what options are there for the country to reflect on it more constructively than the case seems to be now?
First, the term ‘Akenda’ can be traced to the arrival in war-ravaged Buganda in 1899 of British Special Commissioner Harry Johnston with the principle mission of establishing a framework that would guide the relationship between Buganda (also referred to by its Swahilli equivalent, ‘Uganda’) and Britain. On the list of his priorities was the formulation of a settlement of the issue of land ownership. The negotiations for the land settlement yielded the 1900 Uganda (read ‘Buganda’) Agreement which among other things allocated land to various Mengo notables, foreign missionaries and the colonial government. That allocation was laid out in Article 15 of the Agreement.
Secondly, it is important to note that by the time of the negotiations, Buganda was yet to be surveyed. This prompted the negotiating parties to base the land allocation exercise on an estimate of the Kingdom’s acreage, pending the official survey. By now, Buganda’s acreage had expanded by at least 40% following the occupation of seven counties of Bunyoro in the wake of the latter Kingdom’s despoliation and plunder by a combined force of Buganda levies and British troops from 1893 to 1896.
As the survey was awaited, the assumption was made that available land was 19,600 square miles. To highlight the hypothetical nature of that land, Article 15 of the Agreement notes that, ‘Assuming the area of the Kingdom of Uganda, as comprised within the limits cited in this agreement, to amount to 19,600 square miles, it shall be divided in the following proportions…’ Basing on that assumption, the agreement allocated 9,000 Square Miles (the famous ‘Akenda’) to the colonial government for its own purposes.
Thirdly, once the allocation was based on an estimate, it became necessary to state what was to happen once the survey revealed that the actual territorial expanse was more or less than the estimate. In the event of the 19,600 sq miles turning out to have been an overestimation, the agreement stipulated that, ‘After a careful survey of the Kingdom of Uganda (read ‘Buganda’) has been made, if the total area should be found to be less than 19,600, then that portion of the country which is to be vested in Her Majesty’s Government shall be reduced in extent by the deficiency found to exist in the estimated area.’ In case the actual available land was found to more than 19,600 square miles, the agreement noted that: ‘Should, however, the area of Uganda be established at more than 19,600 square miles, then the surplus shall be dealt with as follows: It shall be divided into two parts, one-half shall be added to the amount of land which is vested in Her Majesty’s Government, and the other half will be divided proportionately among the properties of the Kabaka, the three Regents or native ministers, and the Abamasaza, or chiefs of counties.’
The survey was initially delayed by the outbreak of World War I but it was eventually concluded in 1936. It confirmed that instead of the optimistic estimate of
19,600 square miles, the actual land area was 16,138 (17,310 including swamps). This reflected a deficiency of 3,462 square miles from the original estimate. As a matter of detail, of the 16,138 square miles, 9,689 were in East and West Mengo, 3,781 in Masaka and 2,668 in Mubende.
Fourth, as noted already, following from the findings of the survey, Article 15 of the 1900 Agreement had to come into play and as noted above, the shortfall of 3,462 Square Miles had to be deducted from the government’s land allocation of 9,000 square miles, which then left the government with 5,538 square Miles. So, what we see here is that, Mengo’s claim for Akenda disregards the fact that, first, the 19,600 on which the initial allocation was based was a mere estimate that awaited a survey; secondly, that the agreement included a clause for the eventuality of a wrong estimate; and thirdly that survey actually took place and confirmed that actual land was considerably short of the initial estimate. In spite of those historical facts, Mengo continues to mislead itself and its unquestioning followers by insisting on 9,000 square miles, land that did not exist in the first place.
Fifthly, the so-called Akenda suffered further reductions first, arising out of the 1964 referendum on the fate of two of the seven counties excised from Bunyoro in 1896; secondly, as a result of the initiation of the ranching scheme in the cattle corridor. We have to remember that the negotiations between Johnston and the Buganda chiefs followed the 1896 annexation of extensive swaths of the vanquished Bunyoro as already noted.
Bunyoro’s territory consisted of the seven counties of Buyaga, Bugangaizi, Buhekura, Buruli, Bugerere, Singo and Bulemezi which according the Marquis of Salisbury’s despatch of 19 November 1896 ‘…became part of the Kingdom of Uganda [read ‘Buganda’] so would their native inhabitants become Waganda…’. So successful was that mutation that the 1931 census would report that the population of Bugangaizi as 23,785 Baganda and 184 Banyoro while that of Buyaga was 34,951 Baganda and 85 Banyoro! The important point to note though is that up to 80% of the so-called Akenda may be located in those seven counties. That is one reality that often escapes the attention of the ‘Akenda’ claimants who still fail to remember that it was in the process of the colonial state consolidating itself that Buganda ‘acquired’ that extra land.
Losers and beneficiaries
The successor to that colonial state is the present state of Uganda. In essence, Buganda was merely being a custodian of its partner’s booty and that remains the case. As one observer has noted, ‘…having played the game of colonialism with extraordinary success, at least in part because they had sat on the dealer’s right throughout, the Baganda [read Mengoists] decided that if they could not themselves become the dealer, which it seemed from the others’ attitudes they could not, they had better pick their winnings and leave before the dealership changed hands.’ That was the warped thinking in the 1950s; sadly, it is still the case today.
Yet at the same time, the chiefly class at Mengo directly benefitted from those annexations in a very fundamental sense. They never pause ask themselves where the evictees from the tracts of land that were turned into their private estates ended up. Now that the descendants of the chiefly class have fragmented and sold off all their estates, they want to pursue the evictees of the 1900s and eject them from the public land where they were resettled, in addition to wishing to needlessly antagonize the non-Baganda, the indigenes of territories that were annexed from Nkore and Bunyoro. This is a case of wanting to eat one’s cake and have it too and it surely makes the Mengo elite too primitive that to call them selfish would be an extravagant favour.
Of importance for our present argument is the question of Buyaga and Bugangaizi, the only two counties that Bunyoro was to regain. Of the 9,000, or rather 5,538, Square Miles, 667 were in those two counties. Following the 1964 referendum which Mengo lost, and the restoration of the two counties to Bunyoro, the 667 square miles of government land in those two counties ceased to be part of the so-called Akenda. As can be seen, therefore, the 1936 survey of Buganda and the 1964 referendum on the future of two of the seven counties excised from Bunyoro reduced the so-called Akenda to 4,871 square miles. Since the 667 Square Miles of government land in Buyaga and Bugangaizi was part of the Akenda, Mengo’s claim for the latter directly implies that it seeks to have the result of the 1964 referendum nullified. It is extremely troubling to think that any group with a sense of purpose or any sane individual can nurse such a hope or ‘Suubi’ and that, any political outfit worth its salt could wish to ride itself into national leadership by adding fertiliser to such amazing delusion.
As noted, the 1960s saw the establishment of ranching schemes in the three of the districts that are spanned by the cattle corridor. In Buganda, this was implemented as the Buruli/Masaka/Singo ranching scheme and this took up 644 square miles, part of the original Akenda. Therefore, of the original 9,000 square Miles, what was left even by the 1970s was 4,227 Square Miles, much of which was occupied by those that were evicted from the newly created private estates that were never to be put into productive use.
In the final analysis, one is left wondering whether Mengo is unaware of all those historical realities. Morevoer, Mengo continues to disregard the fact that more than 80% of that public land is located in territories that were forcibly annexed to Buganda in 1896, although the Mengo ‘Attorney General’ would claim that ‘Buganda’s land is ancient and is owned by Baganda’. The annexation on November 19, November 1896 of Buruli, Buhekura, Bunyara (Bugerere) and Rugonjo (North Bulemezi and North Singo) would not reasonably fall within the ‘ancient’ timeframe; just like the equally recent attachment of territories that lie to the west of Buddu.
Misrepresentations
In all this, what is intriguing is the desperation with which Mengo has so far attempted to advance the claim for what clearly has never existed, to the point that the principle legal officer of the Kabakakship should put his own credibility on the line. In his statement in response to the Uganda position on ‘Akenda’, the Mengo ‘Attorney General’ issued a rebuttal in which he presents his case by deliberately misquoting key documents, particularly, the Uganda Constitution, 1995 and the 1961 Report of the Uganda Relationship Commission. Mengo lists 13 ‘undeniable facts’ on Akenda, with fact 5. referring to paragraph 220(1) of the Munster Commission Report. On the holding of Crown land by the government, the Munster Commission report noted that the land is held ‘…..in trust for the use and benefit of the African population’ (p. 80). Mengo re-interprets this to mean that the land is held for ‘…the benefit of Baganda, born and yet to be born, who had not benefitted from grants of private Mailo Estates’. That may be fair enough since Baganda may be the priority population for the Mengo oligarchy. However, that position becomes incomprehensible and untenable for four reasons.
The first is, according to the population census held two years ahead of the Munster report, 45% of the Buganda population were non-Baganda, many of them in areas that had recently been excised from other kingdoms such as Nkore and Bunyoro. The interests of the non-Baganda in such areas are of no consequence for the Mengo oligarchy: all such land, including the so-called lost counties is for Baganda ‘…who had not benefitted from grants of private Mailo Estates’.
Secondly, in true individualist and acquisitive spirit, the Kabakaship gives the misleading impression that all land in Buganda is destined to become private mailo estate. This probably implies that if there is any requirement for land for public purposes, it has to be begged for from private individuals; an unsafe view to hold particularly for Buganda whose territory over and above the 10 home counties was acquired through the direct actions of the emerging state of Uganda, specifically through the enhancement of Buganda’s territorial expanse by cannibalisation of Bunyoro.
The third reason is that, Mengo’s posturing as a protector of the interests of ‘Baganda, born and yet to be born’ are pretentious and an insult to the intelligence of those same Baganda. In 1918 the Colonial Government even offered to surrender a sizeable part of the Akenda to the Buganda Government in an attempt to resolve the brewing controversy over the demands by the Buganda clan leaders, the Bataka, for clan lands to be restored to them. The ministers and chiefs in charge of Mengo flatly rejected that offer: Mengo did not want to recognise any other social grouping in Buganda that they imagined to be a rival to their leadership. If claims for Akenda are really aimed at making government surrender land to Baganda, that ought to have been an opportunity worth exploiting. The deeper question shall always remain the actual motive for the claims, which are clearly as relentless as they are groundless.
The fourth reason is to do with the question of whom the actual Baganda who should lay claim to the Kingdom’s heritage are, as evidenced by the case of the 472 tenants of Kabaka’s land that face eviction from Buziga by a company called REXBA, 99% of whose shares belong to Kabaka Mutebi, and 1% to his son, Prince Junju Ssuna. Of those tenants, the Baganda are at least 395, that is, more than 80%. Are those not part of the group of ‘…Baganda, born and yet to be born..’ that we have seen the Mengo ‘Attroney General’ gunning for? Besides those individuals, eviction threats have also been extended to public institutions like Makerere University whose major beneficiary are the people of Buganda; even when it is known that, according to the 1961 Buganda Agreement, the University’s compulsorily renewable leasehold expires in 2161.
In his July 25, 1945 letter to the Uganda Herald berating earlier generations of in-ward looking Mengo officials, the late Sekibobo Ham Mukasa Rwamujonjoza, great grand parent of the reigning Kabaka had this to say: ‘.....I would ask all of you Baganda to do all you can to help your country, and not to try to prevent or hinder your own people from going forward. As you will realize from what I have said, I myself feel strongly that Makerere College should remain in our own country, so that our people may have the honour and privilege of having it situated here, and that they may gain all they can from it.’ The vibes of parochial thinking and lack of far-sightedness that continue to issue from Mengo would make that honourable gentleman turn in his grave.
Apart from the deliberate manipulation of the contents of the Munster Commission report, the Mengo legal officer has for purposes of advancing the case for return of Akenda even attempted to amend the Uganda Constitution, 1995. While Article 246(3) (a) of the Constitution states that the institution of the traditional leader can ‘hold assets and properties in trust for itself and the people concerned’, Mengo’s position on Akenda misquotes or rather amends the constitution to make it read that, traditional leaders can ‘…hold assets and properties in trust for itself and the people of Buganda.’ It is one thing to give interpretation to sections of the constitution to suit specific situations but it is another thing to misquote it to suit one’s own purposes. More importantly, it is a violation of that very constitution especially Articles 3(2) and 259 (2).
Similarly, the Mengo ‘Attorney General’ advanced the case for restoration of Akenda by fabricating references to a 1938 publication by Thomas and Spencer titled ‘A History of Uganda Land and Surveys’. He referred to pages 32 and 63 as he explained the final survey and the reduction of Buganda public land following the 1964 referendum. However, page 32 of the publication dwells on survey of the Congo-Uganda boundary and makes no mention whatsoever of Buganda; while page 63 (let alone the rest of the publication) is silent on Buyaga and Bugangaizi.
Historical injustice
By way of being generous to the gentlemen at Mengo, one could speculate that they are fully aware of the facts outlined above but their interests lie elsewhere, with the Akenda charade being employed as a diversion for protecting the more substantive landed interests. It should be remembered that up to now, the outcome of the 1964 referendum remains unconsummated and justice remains undone for the people of Buyaga and Bugangaizi.
Once Mengo lost that referendum, the status quo should have been restored to the pre-1896 situation, that is, the total cessation of occupation of those counties by Buganda, meaning the Kingdom, its officials and its subjects. On the contrary, only the land that had been allocated to government was reverted to the Bunyoro. To date, 686 Square miles of Kibaale District i.e., 70%, is still in the hands of Mengo allied landlords, a state of affairs that should have ceased as soon as the results of the 1964 referendum were announced. The land on which Karuguza sits is in the hands of one such land lord. Karuguza is Head Quarters of Kibale District. According to records in the land department, Plot 1 Block 42 in Buyaga consisting of 1,433 hectares (3541 Acres) belongs to Kabaka Mutesa II while Kabaka Ronald Mutebi himself owns Plot 3, block 90, measuring 231 hectares (571 acres) in Bugangaizi; a total of 4,112 acres.
It is such interests that the Mengo elite may be interested in jealously protecting and may be fully aware that the Akenda is a sham claim and are only employing it as tactic to keep the Uganda government authorities sufficiently distracted from the real injustice which they should long have dealt with.
Whatever the case, if self-deluded Mengo is ever allowed to have its way, we shall witness a season of troubled times that will in many ways outdo some of the ugliest scenes that have recently dominated the Great Lakes Region.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
