1962: How Buganda tested Ugandan, British politicians

On July 26, 1962, the British House of Lords debated the `Uganda Independence Bill’. A look at the proceeding reveals many issues that troubled the leading politicians of the period. Top on that was list was the place of Buganda in Uganda, which remains to this day. Below is a heavily edited version of the proceedings:

Order of the Day for the Second
Reading read.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE
My Lords, I have at command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Uganda Independence Bid, has consented to place Her Majesty’s Prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

THE MINISTER FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS
(THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The object of the Bill is to provide for the Independence of Uganda. I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased to know that it was the unanimous wish expressed at the Independence Conference that Uganda should remain in the Commonwealth and be under the sovereignty of Her Majesty the Queen, as Queen of Uganda. It so happens that it is almost exactly 100 years since the explorers Speke and Grant discovered the headwaters of the Nile and it was from this date that our association with Uganda began. It is now 68 years since the Protectorate was first declared.

During these years Uganda has been growing into a nationhood. Its peoples have been learning to work together to create a stable and happy country. There is a growing spirit of co-operation in Uganda and in recent years a real basis of political unity has been worked out. The Munster Commission (which your Lordships will remember was the Relationships Commission) did much to promote this spirit of unity, and I should like to record the gratitude of Her Majesty’s Government to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, who led the Commission, and to his distinguished colleagues Professor Wade and Dr. Marshall.

At the Independence Conference which was concluded on June 29 at Marlborough House, arrangements were agreed which offer a permanent solution to many of the long-standing problems which have faced Uganda.

The most important and baffling of these problems has been the welding of the traditional kingdoms of Buganda, Ankole, Bunyoro and Toro into a modern structure of Government. The Report of this Conference is contained in Command Paper No. 1778, which was recently laid before Parliament.

Uganda, perhaps more than any other British territories in Africa, has been notable for the exceptional strength of its tribal loyalties and institutions. Buganda, with its central position, with its highly developed system of Government, its Kabaka, and its traditional Council the Lukiko has tended to overshadow the rest of the country. The other kingdoms and districts have also been equally concerned to preserve their individuality. They have all, however, been willing to make sacrifices in order that the new Independent Uganda should have sufficient strength and cohesion to play its part in the affairs of the modern world.

The difficult question of the position of Buganda was to a large extent solved at the Lancaster House Conference last year. The work of the Independence Conference last month was greatly facilitated by this preparatory work. A federal relationship between Buganda and the Central Government had then been agreed, and a satisfactory relationship has now been worked out between the other Kingdoms and districts and the Central Government. Noble Lords will remember that the Central Government, under the leadership of Mr. Obote, has been in office for less than three months. None the less, during this short time much constructive work has been done.

The success of the Independence Conference was in no small part due to the confidence which Mr. Obote and his Ministers were able to inspire in the delegates from all parts of the country. Having myself sat for many hours in the Constitutional Committee, I was able to see this for myself.

I should like to pay my tribute to the painstaking care and obvious sense of responsibility with which the Uganda delegates set about their task. I am bound to say that again and again during the course of the Conference regional interests were pressed; but equally, my Lords, when there seemed some danger that these regional interests were being over-emphasised, the good sense of the delegates prevailed, and they reminded themselves that their purpose was to achieve a Constitution which would benefit Uganda as a whole.

There was one issue at the Conference which proved incapable of solution by agreement. This was the dispute between the Kingdoms of Buganda and Bunyoro over the so-called “lost counties”. As your Lordships will remember, the Prime Minister appointed a Commission consisting of three Members of your Lordships’ House, under the chairmanship of Lord Molson, assisted by Lord Listowel and Lord Ward of Witley, to advise the Government on this difficult question. Those of your Lordships who have read their report will, I am quite certain appreciate the immense care and close consideration of all the facts with which they discharged their task.

Like the Munster Commission, Lord Molson’s Commission treated the problem of the “lost counties” as a political question and not as a juridical one. Their report, your Lordships will remember, recommended that two of the counties, Buyaga and Bugangazzi, should be transferred from Buganda to Bunyoro.

We entered upon the Independence Conference with the conviction that this would be the best solution to the problem, if the two Kingdoms could be brought to agree to it. But, my Lords, in the event, Buganda were adamant that there should be no transfer of territory. They maintained that the territory concerned was lawfully theirs, and, furthermore, that Lord Molson’s Commission had to a very large extent acquitted them of charges of discrimination.

As there could be no agreement, my right honourable friend had to weigh very carefully the consequences of an imposed decision. He took fully into account the Commission’s warnings of the risk of serious disturbances in the future if nothing were done. He also accepted their view that the atmosphere was quite unsuitable for holding a referendum in the short time available before the promised date of independence.

He, therefore, decided upon a solution which gave the responsibility of the administration of the two counties to the Central Government for a period, and with it the responsibility to give the people who live there the opportunity by a referendum to decide their own future in conditions of peace and security. It is our belief that this solution will give security to the peoples concerned, and should greatly reduce the threat to peace and good order at this

As your Lordships know, the view was urged in another place that there should be written into the Constitution a date before which the referendum must be held, or, at least, that a public declaration should be made in Uganda that a referendum will be held, without necessarily putting a date to it. An undertaking was given that these views would be put to Mr. Obote and this has been done.

Mr. Obote is now embarking upon discussions on the practical implementation of the Conference’s decisions. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish that by anything we say here to-day we should complicate the issue in Uganda.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, the noble Marquess has referred to the unanimous wish of all Parties taking part in the Conference that the independent State of Uganda should continue to be a member of the Commonwealth. I think we can welcome that, and, as the noble Marquess says, we can welcome the spirit of compromise that was shown by the parties taking part. One could, however, wish that that spirit had gone just a little further. I have seen it said in a letter from the Ruler of Bunyoro that “compromise is quite unknown to Africans. Yet,” he said, “we willingly accepted the compromise proposed by the Molson Committee.

On a smaller scale we have a manifestation of it in the case of the “lost counties” that are in dispute between the Kingdoms of Uganda and Bunyoro. The Commission of which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, was Chairman went into this subject in great detail and came to a unanimous conclusion—and I can say on behalf of my noble friend Lord Listowel that he was entirely in agreement with the Report of that Commission.

They recommended a certain course to Her Majesty’s Government, and the noble  Marquess has explained that Her Majesty’s Government also thought that that would be the best solution; but we have to face it that when they saw that they could not get agreement with this solution they decided against imposing a solution while Her Majesty’s Government was still in control. Remember, my Lords, that the Act says, in line 14 of the first page: “… as from the appointed day Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the Government of Uganda or any part thereof.” I and my friends feel that Her Majesty’s Government have shirked the responsibility which was theirs of deciding on the solution which they themselves thought was the best.

They decided that it would be dangerous to leave things as they are and that a referendum was impossible in the time they had available. Delay, surely, will be dangerous.