UGANDA

Like almost all other African countries, present-day Uganda was brought together as a single entity through European colonialism. The country was made up of many ethnic groups or states, in most cases, independent of one another, and possessing different social and political organizations ranging from centralized kingdoms to segmented societies.

For our purposes here in particular, the precolonial constitutional arrangements of these groups were as diverse as the groups themselves. Some groups like the Acholi, Alur, Iteso, and Bakiga organized themselves along decentralized clan-based political and social organizations. Those who were organized into centralized kingdoms included the Baganda (the Kingdom of Buganda), the Banyankole (the Kingdom of Ankole), the Banyoro (the Kingdom of Bunyoro), and the Batoro (the Kingdom of Toro). The Baganda are the largest ethnic group in Uganda, and their monarchy was the strongest and the most pronounced during colonial rule. The preexisting constitutional structure of Buganda played a vital role in the British colonial expansion and rule in Uganda, and the monarchy was so powerful as to create a major constitutional crisis for Uganda on the eve of independence and beyond. More generally, like some other countries, including Sudan and Nigeria discussed later, the strong ethnic diversity, variety of political and social institutions, and consequent multiplicity of interests and how to meet them presented the greatest challenge to nation-building and constitutional development throughout the colonial era and since independence.

Between 1884 and 1912 Britain used several strategies including treaties and agreements with traditional leaders, military conquests, and coercion to patch together the diverse ethnic and linguistic groups of Uganda into a single entity. The Buganda kingdom and its strong kingship institution, and similar structures in Ankole, Bunyoro, and Toro, provided an expedient vehicle for British colonial administration through traditional leaders and institutions, commonly known as “indirect rule.” To that end, Britain signed agreements with the local rulers, with Buganda in 1900, Ankole and Toro in 1902, and Bunyoro in 1933. Those agreements could be regarded as the first constitutional documents in the modern history of Uganda (Mukholi 1995: 3).

In areas that did not have centralized monarchies, the colonial administration issued a series of ordinances to create chiefs in those areas and gave them powers, rights, and privileges to maintain order on behalf of the colonial government in their territories; to collect taxes; and to recruit labor for public works. In time, the interests of the chiefs and the government became more closely interwoven, as the former collected taxes, received fixed salaries, and promoted centrally initiated policies. The more the chiefs became associated in the public’s mind with the colonial administration, the more they also associate their own interest with those of the ruling power (Low 1960: 173). In Ibiranga’s view, that system of indirect rule was to a large extent responsible for the strains and stresses that Uganda went through, including encouraging Buganda’s demand to secede from the rest of the country, demands by the western kingdoms of Busoga for federal status and extravagant powers (Ibiranga 1973: 28).

As demands for independence began to rise by the 1950s, Ugandans began to focus their attention on constitutional arrangements that would define power sharing when the British colonial rule ended. In response, the colonial government set up the Wild Constitutional Committee in 1958 to work out plans for a general election on a common roll for the members of the Legislative Council, which would be introduced in 1961.

The Wild Committee published its report in February 1960, detailing steps toward independence and recommending that direct elections to the Legislative Council be held in 1961. The Kingdom of Buganda however, rejected the report on the grounds that it did not take adequate account of its demand for full federal status in the independent Uganda, and threatened to secede completely (Karugire 1980: 177). Though the secession threat did not materialize, Buganda refused to participate in the political process, boycotted the 1961 elections, and generally continued to present a huge stumbling block toward the realization of Uganda’s independence.

In 1961, the colonial government appointed a commission headed by the Earl of Munster to work out a constitutional framework as part of the transition toward full independence for Uganda. The Munster Commission carried out extensive consultations and deliberations with various categories of people and interest groups in Uganda. Meanwhile Buganda and some other kingdoms and monarchies like the Ankole, Toro, and Bunyoro kept campaigning intensively for some form of constitutional recognition in postcolonial Uganda. The Munster Commission published its report in June 1961, recommending acceptance of the demands of Buganda for federal status, and recognition of its king (the Kabaka) as a constitutional monarch. For the kingdoms of Ankole, Bunyoro, and Toro, however, the Commission recommended a semifederal position because the agreements those kingdoms signed earlier with the British colonial government, noted above, had not given them administrative autonomy equal to that of Buganda (Mukholi 1995: 10).

Consequently, the Independence Constitution of 1962 established a British parliamentary model of government, gave Buganda federal status, semifederal status for the kingdoms of Toro, Bunyoro, and Ankole, and a unitary system for the rest of the country. By that hybrid federal and unitary system, members of the federal legislature were to be elected directly, except those from Buganda, who served as an electoral college for the kingdom’s representatives. That complicated compromise survived for a very brief period of peace and unity, as the country was engulfed in political and constitutional crises soon after independence due to the conflict between Buganda and the central government on how to implement the constitutional formula. In an effort to defuse the crisis, the constitutional amendment of 1963 provided for the position of a ceremonial head of state (president), and the national assembly (parliament) elected the Kabaka of Buganda to that position. But that solution created even more constitutional problems as conflicts of interest emerged from the Kabaka’s dual role as both king of Buganda and president of Uganda. While he was constitutionally required to act in accordance with the advice of the national assembly and the cabinet, he was often more loyal to the kingdom than to the country. As the interests of the kingdom were often at variance with those of the country as a whole, there was a constant power struggle between the Kabaka/president and prime minister.

In 1966, Prime Minister Milton Obote deposed the resident and declared himself executive president. He abrogated the Independence Constitution and singlehandedly introduced a new constitution that he called the interim constitution.

In 1967 Obote introduced another constitution that was basically an amended version of the 1966 Pigeon Hole Constitution, except that it abolished all the kingdoms and declared Uganda a republic. It also provided for extensive concentration of power at the center, away from local governments. Obote then began a systematic process of arrogating absolute power unto himself; all opposition parties were banned and political opponents killed, thrown into jail, or forced into exile. This was the situation until 1971, when General Idi Amin Dada ousted Obote and elevated his dictatorial reign of terror to a completely new level.

During the following nine years, the 1967 Constitution was completely disregarded as Amin ruled by decree and all representative institutions were abolished or subordinated to his will. Suspected political opponents were detained, tortured, and sometimes publicly executed, and terror and gross human rights abuses were commonplace. Also during this time almost 90,000 Asians were expelled from Uganda.

Eventually, Amin brought about his own downfall when he threatened to invade Tanzania in 1979 and take over a part of its territory he claimed belonged to Uganda. In response, Tanzania launched an anticipatory attack by a combination of Tanzania’s military and forces of Ugandan exiles. The invasion succeeded in overthrowing Amin, who fled the country.

Between 1980 and 1986, Uganda had a succession of different leaders. First, Amin was replaced for a short time by a government of the Uganda National Liberation Front (UNLF), an amalgam of several political and military groups. However, when a national election was conducted in 1980, it brought Obote back to power again. As disagreements and squabbles by the politicians and different interest groups continued, Yoweri Museveni, the leader of one of the parties in the UNLF, launched a campaign of guerrilla warfare against the government. In 1986, Museveni’s forces overran Kampala, and he was sworn in as the president of Uganda.

By 1988, the country had started a long and exhaustive constitution-making process involving extensive consultation with the Ugandan people, until a new constitution was adopted in 1995. The Constitutional Commission conducted an extensive series of public debates, seminars, workshops, and meetings throughout the country and provided various forums for discussion and constitutional education of the people. It also looked to newspapers, interest groups, and educational institutions for input on the new, more legitimate constitution, and conducted comparative studies. The Commission received over 25,000 submissions from the general population on what they wanted to see in the constitution. From these submissions, the commission drafted a constitution that retained the principle of the country as a republic under a presidential type of government, and yet restored the kingdoms that were abolished by Obote in the 1967 Constitution. The draft constitution provided for a comprehensive bill of human rights and freedoms with special focus on women, children, and disadvantaged groups. The draft constitution was debated by a Constituent Assembly during 1994 and 1995 and, on September 22, 1995, the new constitution was enacted.

At the time of writing, Museveni remains the executive president and head of state since 1986. He was reelected in 2001 for the second time under the 1995 Constitution, and again officially declared the winner of the February 2006 elections, the first multi-party elections in 25 years. Museveni was declared to have received 59 percent of the votes, the opposition leader Kizza Besigye got 37 percent and the three other candidates just over 3 percent. The opposition candidate and foreign observers objected to the fairness of the election process and validity of the official result.

The unicameral National Assembly consists of 214 members directly elected by popular vote, 81 nominated by legally established special interest groups (women 56, army 10, disabled 5, youth 5, labor 5), 8 ex officio members. The last elections were held in 2001, and the next is due to be held in 2006. The only political organization allowed to operate freely is the Movement (formerly the NRM) of President Museveni, who maintains that it is a mass organization which claims the loyalty of all Ugandans, rather than a political party as such. There are, however, several political parties which are not allowed to sponsor candidates for election, including the Ugandan People’s Congress of Milton Obote, the former prime minister/president.

Uganda’s experiment in non-party politics was not totally new, as can be seen from the experiences of other countries, reviewed earlier. While the legitimacy of the 1995 Constitution may have been generally acknowledged, many groups hold that their views and needs were not accommodated in the drafting process (Mukholi 1995: 82). The advocates of a multi-party system in particular argued that the restrictions on their political activities constitute a violation of freedom of association in order to consolidate the Museveni’s Movement control over the country (83). That argument eventually prevailed and multi-party politics has been restored, but it remains to be seen what the people of Uganda will make of these developments in securing constitutionalism in their country.