The Independent Uncensored News Views And Analysis

Rage continues over President Yoweri Museveni’s letter proposing ring-fencing of elective political positions in Bunyoro for only the indigenous Banyoro.

On July 15 the President wrote to the Minister in charge of the Presidency, Beatrice Wabudeya, suggesting that migrants a.k.a. Bafuruki should leave sub-county councils up to Member of Parliament positions for Banyoro until after 20 years when the situation could be reviewed.

I appreciate the president’s efforts to address the ethnic friction between the indigenous Banyoro and the Bafuruki especially the Bakiga although there are also Banyankore, Bafumbira and others. This friction has been going on for years but every time Museveni tries to intervene he leaves the situation worse and the warring communities more polarised than before. This suggests he uses wrong methods. Museveni is probably the most advised president in the world with over 100 presidential advisors and assistants. Then why is it hard for him and his battalion of advisors to find a working solution to such an ethnic problem?

To me the problem has nothing to do with whether he seeks advice from his advisors or whether they give him competent advice. It has to do with Museveni’s character and his perception about the Bakiga. He has variously made derogatory remarks about the Bakiga. One time he said the Bakiga had failed to use the Kabale tarmac road for their economic empowerment but instead walk on it drunk on muramba (local crude brew). This implies that Bakiga are economic idlers or economically dense. At another time he reportedly said one Mukwano is more important than 1,000 Bakiga (because Mukwano pays more taxes than what 1,000 Bakiga peasants combined can pay). Statistically the president is correct. But socially it shows the low opinion he has about the Bakiga. That’s why probably he treats them the way he does. Museveni hates sectarianism and tribalism and has caused arrest of people suspected of fomenting ethnicity. Then why does he appear to shift goal posts when it comes to the Bakiga/Banyoro conflict?

In his letter Museveni said the Bakiga have marginalised the indigenous Banyoro in political positions. What statistics did the Banyoro give to support their claims? Could it have been an oversight on the part of Museveni, given his love for facts and figures, not to ask them for this basic information? I doubt. It appears that when a complaint is against Bakiga the basic questions are never asked. 

Now the emerging information shows that, for example, of the 37 members of the district council in Kibaale, the epicentre of the Banyoro/Bafuruki row, 25 members including the chairman are Banyoro. The Bafuruki are 12. The District Executive Committee, Public Accounts Committee, District Service Commission and District Land Board, have four Banyoro and one Mufuruki on each. Of the 20 LC-III chairperson posts, 13 are occupied by Banyoro and 7 by Bafuruki. When positions of resident district commissioners and presidential advisors are included, the total share of posts held by Banyoro stands at 61 (71%) compared to the Bafuruki’s 25 (29%). In Buyanja County all political posts from sub-county to parliament level are held 100% by Banyoro. In Bugangaizi County, the Banyoro hold 78% of the same political positions compared to the Bafuruki’s 22%.

So who is marginalising who? How can 29% marginalise 71% at district level? How can zero percent Bafuruki (as in the case of Buyanja) marginalise the 100% Banyoro? Or the 22% Bafuruki versus the 78% Banyoro in Bugangaizi?         

This revelation inflicts a huge dent on Museveni’s impartiality in the conflict.

Why does he yield so quickly to pressure or demand groups without examining the merits of their demands? When clans cry of marginalisation and demand a district, he allows them to have it. When others demand a kingdom, he tells them to install a traditional chief. When squatters say they have been illegally evicted, he orders their reinstatement and arrest of the police etc. I will return to this point next time. 

In his letter he cites Articles 9, 10 and 32 of the constitution to justify his affirmative action for the alleged marginalisation. That allegation has been proved false, so I don’t need to spend more time arguing about its merits. But even if it were to be that Banyoro were marginalised, affirmative action would not mean that some tribes should be disenfranchised in order to promote political interests of others.

The President should be reminded that the Bafuruki too enjoy the equal right to vote and be voted under the fundamental human rights and freedoms prescribed under Chapter Four of the same constitution he cited. Article 20. (1) states: “ Fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual are inherent and not granted by the State. (2) The rights and freedoms of the individual and groups enshrined in this Chapter shall be respected, upheld and promoted by all organs and agencies of Government and by all persons.

Article 21 (1) reads: “All persons are equal before and under the law in all spheres of political, economic, social and cultural life and in every other respect and shall enjoy equal protection of the law. (2) Without prejudice to clause (1) of this article, a person shall not be discriminated against on the ground of sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, or social or economic standing, political opinion or disability.
(3) For the purposes of this article, “discriminate” means to give different treatment to different persons attributable only or mainly to their respective descriptions by sex, race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe, birth, creed or religion, or social or economic standing, political opinion or disability.”

Let the president be reminded that what he is doing in Bunyoro is in brutal violation of these constitutional provisions.  The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any other law, action, custom or regulation that is inconsistent with any provision of the constitution shall be null and void to the extent of its inconsistence.  It’s my submission that the president’s letter falls under this category.

This is not the first time Museveni is taking sides in the Banyoro/Bakiga or Bafuruki dispute. In 2002 Fred Ruremera, a Mukiga, was elected Kibale district chairman by universal adult suffrage. A group of radical Banyoro, allied to the losing candidate, protested. Museveni reacted by ordering Ruremera to resign his seat or else he would take over the district under the presidential mandate provided for in the constitution. Reason? Ruremera was a Mukiga.

Ordering Ruremera to stand down, Museveni also cited the colonial mistakes and the Bakiga dominance as he reiterated in his July 15 letter. George Namyaka, a Munyoro was elected unopposed. When Barnabas Tinkasimire, another Mukiga/Mufuruki, attempted to stand against Namyaka, he was hunted all around the district by the military. Tinkasimire went into hiding until nominations were over.    

Museveni erroneously thought this would silence the Bakiga/Bafuruki politically. But the 2006 elections showed the contrary. Tinkasimire was elected MP for Buyaga County. Mabel Bakeine, another Mufuruki, was elected MP for Bugangaizi. This suggests that the Ruremera incident instead galvanised the Bafuruki into a stronger political block. So it’s futile to entrench this Banyoro-Bafuruki divide by perpetuating the Ruremera-type of strategy. Such systematic official marginalisation of one ethnic community against the other usually breeds ethnic violence rather than avert it. At different stages of history, the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda were marginalised in political leadership positions. We all know today what has happened and I am sure nobody would relish such a situation.  

However, this whole thing of ring-fencing political positions for the indigenous Banyoro could be a red herring to divert the Banyoro from the real issues affecting Bunyoro area. Bunyoro has remained one of the most underdeveloped areas in Uganda despite its rich natural resources and lately the oil. Its road network is among the worst in the country. Its general social infrastructure like schools, healthcare system are appalling yet the government is silent about this but is louder on ring-fencing political positions. It’s only waking up to grant Banyoro reserved political positions which mean nothing to the ordinary person. For example how does ring-fencing sub-county, district and parliament positions give Bunyoro good roads, schools hospitals and electricity? How does the “ring-fencing” develop Bunyoro if it’s not just to blind the Bunyoro residents from demanding their deserved share of national development as they get sucked into ethnic squabbles? I am sure Bunyoro’s big problem is not whether the MPs, LC-V or LC-III chairpersons are Banyoro or Bafuruki. It’s development and social service delivery.  What affects the Banyoro in Bunyoro also affects Bafuruki equally- the impassable roads, poor education, health service delivery, poverty etc.

The wise should beware of this divide-and-rule strategy. Equally, the Animal Farm syndrome of “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others” will not liberate Bunyoro.

But more intriguing is that almost all tribes have had migrations. When Museveni ring-fences political positions in Bunyoro, will he also do the same in other parts of the country where there are migrants? For example there are many Banyankore migrants in Buganda districts like Sembabule, Kiboga, Nakasongola etc where they have been standing for elections. Museveni himself is a mufuruki in Ankole. His family migrated from Rukungiri in Mpororo, to Ntungamo and finally to Nyabushozi. Therefore he is not an indigenous Munyankore in Ankole the same way Foreign Minister Sam Kutesa, who is MP Mawogola County in Buganda and Joy Kabatsi, who contested the Sembabule District Woman MP seat in Buganda, are not indigenous Baganda. If he genuinely believes in the affirmative action for the indigenous communities against the migrants, let Museveni also ring-fence political positions in Buganda, Ankole and other areas where there is a significant population of migrants. Short of that, one cannot be accused of discourtesy for thinking that Museveni’s letter is sectarian, targeting one ethnic group against the other in Bunyoro.  

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Comments (14)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment Preview