Last week, we pointed out that the Uganda Law Society (ULS) polls were not just an electoral process but were in in fact a referendum on the place of law – and lawyers – in the struggle for freedom and democracy in Uganda.
On Saturday, 28th September 2024, that referendum proceeded as scheduled and, fortunately, close to 70% of the membership of the ULS membership resoundingly voted in favour of a politically conscious, activist and public-facing law society over a more insular one.
In so doing, they gave the leader of the legal rebellion – Isaac Ssemakadde – the radical mandate which he had explicitly sought in the course of his campaigns. The onus is now upon him, with the support of the entire membership, to deliver on his four- pillar manifesto of democratization, demilitarization, decolonization and digital transformation.
Today, I would like to reflect on one aspect of the just concluded process, which has thus far not been foregrounded: its ethnic dimensions. Unfortunately, part of the colonial legacy in Uganda was the cynical emphasis on divisions along racial and ethnic lines. Aside from the privileging of an Asian minority, the colonial State also privileged the Bantu community over Nilotic peoples who were deemed more suited for martial rather than civil service roles.
And so, for a long time, the oppressive colonial State also had an ethnic dimension in the form of Bantu-speaking Chiefs mainly from the Kingdom areas of Buganda, Toro and Ankole (with whom Agreements had been signed in 1900 and 1901), and later what came to be known as the ‘Territory of Busoga’.
This would be exacerbated by the 1919 Native Authority Ordinance, which effectively created an apartheid-like State in Uganda, with restrictions on ‘native’ travel. In these circumstances, it is little wonder that, towards independence, Uganda remained deeply divided along ethnic lines.
So clear were these fissures that on 4th February 1959, the then Governor of Uganda, Sir Frederick Crawford, set up a Constitutional Committee, chaired by John Wild, whose terms of reference included an enquiry into how such a diverse political community could have an electoral democracy based on a common roll.
In its report, submitted to the Governor on 5th December 1959, the Committee came quite close to admitting the malfeasance of the British colonial project: ‘Uganda is an artificial unit containing within its borders … very different tribes with different languages and customs … [I]t is argued that the policies followed in the administration of Uganda have done little to break down the barriers which exist, particularly between the various tribal units, but on the contrary have tended to foster them. This is the source of the claim sometimes made that it has been the British Government’s aim to divide and rule in Uganda. It is also suggested that District Commissioners in their districts and
Provincial Commissioners in their provinces tend to regard their regions as isolated units. The development of the District Councils and the powers given to them on a district (and hence tribal) basis are also quoted as examples of a policy which has perpetuated the divisions of the country’ (pages 34-35, para 147).
These divisions would be reflected in the legal profession, which inevitably – as it usually does – reflected the socio- economic dynamics of the time. It is no accident that the first indigenous lawyers were from these Kingdom areas – Apollo Kironde, Elizabeth Bagaya, Godfrey Lukongwa Binaisa, Abu Mayanja, Godfrey Serunkuma Lule and others.
Conversely, when Apollo Milton Obote attempted to study law – first in the United States of America and later in Britain and Sudan- he was actively obstructed by the British government. The legal profession, it seems, was something too dangerous into which to admit a person from the wrong ‘tribe’.
In 2024, for various reasons, not much seems to have changed in terms of the legal profession and its link to social, political and economic dynamics. Indeed, many of the leading law firms in Uganda still very much reflect historical and contemporary privilege on the one hand, and challenges in access to opportunity, on the other.
Of the following firm, for instance, how many are headed by women, persons from Northern Uganda, or Muslims (to take but a few indicia): Katende, Ssempebwa & Co; S &L (formerly Sebalu & Lule); H & G Advocates (formerly Kateera & Kagumire, and prior to that, Hunter and Greig); Shonubi, Musoke & Co; Kampala Associated Advocates; MMAKS; ENS; AF Mpanga; ABMAK; Signum; K & K; Birungyi, Barata; Ligomarc; ALP East Africa; Byenkya, Kihika; Kasirye, Byaruhanga; Nangwala, Rezida; Tumusiime, Kabega; Birungyi, Barata; Arcadia; KTA; Engoru, Mutebi; Ortus and others.
An examination of the list of the Attorneys General of Uganda since independence is similarly telling, in terms of those persons unrepresented therein: Godfrey Binaisa (1962-1967); Lameck Lubowa (1967-1971); Peter James Nkambo Mugerwa (1971-1974); Godfrey Lule (1974- 1977); Mathia Bazitya Matovu (1977-1979); George Wilson Kanyeihamba (1979); Stephen Amoding Ariko (1979-1985); Sam Kutesa (1985-1986); Joseph Mulenga (1986-1988); George Wilson Kanyeihamba (1988- 1991); Abu Mayanja (1991-1994); Joseph Ekemu (1994-1996); Bart Magunda Katureebe (1996-2001); Francis Ayume (2001-2004); Amama Mbabazi (2004-2006); Khidu Makubuya (2005-2011); Peter Nyombi (2011-2015); Fred Ruhindi (2015-2016); William Byaruhanga (2016-2021) and Kiryowa Kiwanuka (2021 to present).
Law remains very much a reflection of dimensions of social, political and economic power; and those excluded or marginalized in society are inevitably underrepresented in the structures of the legal profession. This tension was one of the unacknowledged undercurrents of the just- concluded ULS leadership struggle.
Among other reasons, I personally found it difficult as a Busingye – in a Uganda which has been ruled by Kaguta Museveni since 1986 (and supported at various times by a Western- leaning cast of persons like Kahinda Otafiire, Jim Muhwezi, Amanya Mushega, Amama Mbabazi, Ruhakana Rugunda, Tumusiime Mutebile, Mugisha Muntu, Kizza Besigye and others) – to bring myself, in good faith, to support the candidature of an Atukunda.
Matters were not helped by the happenstance of an Atukunda presidential campaign spearheaded by such an array of persons as Byamazima, Agaba Amponda, Tumukunde, Rutaro, Harimwomugasho and others.
Ssemakadde, on the other hand, demonstrably traversed all parts of Uganda, and ran a campaign which was deliberately all-embracing, emphasizing, for instance, the suffering of the persons in Kasese; the travails of practitioners in North and Eastern Uganda.
Indeed, his very catchy campaign song about banging tables was composed and sang by artistes from Northern Uganda, who followed him to the grounds of Munyonyo to play it live before gathered ULS members on the eve of the election. I was faced with the same dilemma when it came to voting for the other positions for which there was competition, particularly the position of Vice President.
Again, I could not in good conscience, vote for Mr. Anthony Asiimwe – preferring, for purposes of gender, regional and religious diversity – Ms Fatuma Omar. I am sorry she did not make it, but have no doubt that Anthony will well and truly serve in the role.
There is clearly much that needs to be done to ensure that the legal fraternity looks more like the broader Ugandan society which it is meant to serve. The way I see it, the resounding vote in favour of the legal rebel was also a rebellion against a Ugandan legal establishment which has concentrated economic power in the hands of a few well-connected individuals with links to political and military power.
It was a protest vote not just against State capture of the law society, but also against the nature of those who have captured the state since 1986. In this regard, part of the decolonization agenda must address sub-national colonialism, otherwise known as ‘tribalism’. Indeed, this is itself mandated by the 1995 Constitution.
For instance, Objective III (ii) of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy (NODPSP) is to the effect that: ‘Every effort shall be made to integrate all the peoples of Uganda while at the same time recognising the existence of their ethnic, religious, ideological, political and cultural diversity.’
Article 21 (2) of the Constitution also prohibits discrimination based on, among other things race, colour, ethnic origin, tribe and birth. The challenge of living up to these provisions is one placed on all of us.
Indeed, I am not insensitive, for instance, to the fact that next Semester, at the Makerere University School of Law, students will be taught Constitutional Law by Busingye and Ruhweza, Contract Law by Twinomugisha and Tusasirwe, Criminal Law by Ndagire and Kasimbazi and Legal Methods by Bakayana and Mayambala. Is this array of actors representative of the broad diversity of Ugandan society? I am not sure.
The 28th September 2024 ULS vote was also a protest against ethno-military hegemony (more to be said on this later), and it is one which we must all take very seriously. On this note – of taking things seriously – I will be taking off the next two weeks to focus on the needs of Makerere School of Law’s Postgraduate programme, as we struggle to ensure that Master of Laws (LLM) and Doctor of Laws (LLD) students complete their studies within the times stipulated under the university statutes.
The writer is Senior Lecturer and Acting Director of the Human Rights and Peace Centre (HURIPEC) at the School of Law, Makerere University, where he teaches Constitutional Law and Legal Philosophy.
