1962: How Buganda tested Ugandan, British politicians

LORD TWINING

My Lords, it was my privilege to serve in Uganda from 1923 to 1938, first in the Army and then in the
Administration. I know the country well, and I count among my friends many Uganda Africans from the most lowly to the highest in the land. As the noble Viscount has said, anyone who visits Uganda must be struck by the beauty of the smiling countryside which has been so wall endowed by nature.

This is reflected by the happy look on the faces of those who live there. They are an intelligent and well-mannered people, who go about their business with a dignified poise suggesting a natural pride in their land and their way of life. If during the last few years there have been political stresses and strains, most of these have been resolved by the mature good sense of the people and the statesmanship of their leaders.

Uganda is notable for the strength of the monarchical system. The Kingdoms of Buganda, Bunyoro, Toro and Ankole cover a large part of the total area of the country. I have always thought that the British Administration tended; to underestimate how deeply rooted monarchy is in the minds and the loyalties of the people. In Buganda the Kabakaship is regarded as being sacrosanct. It is the outward and visible sign of their history and of their sense of nationhood, while at the same time it carries with it a certain undefinable but, nevertheless, powerful mystique. I have known two Kabakas, and can testify to the devotion and loyalty shown by their subjects, both to their office and to their person. The same is true of the other Kingdoms. It is therefore not surprising, though it is none the less gratifying, that they accept our gracious Sovereign, not only as Head of the Commonwealth but as Queen of Uganda.

LORD MOLSON

My Lords, I should not have risen if I did not feel bound to make certain remarks about the settlement which has been imposed in the lost counties dispute. I share the disappointment that the appeal that we made in our Report to Buganda to make a generous move towards a settlement has not been accepted. As my noble friend has said, our proposal was that, of the six counties, two, Buyaga and Bugangazzi, where the Banyoro were in a large majority and were obviously very much attached to the Omukama in sentiment, should be returned to that Kingdom, and that the other four should continue to remain with Buganda. My Lords, we did not recommend a referendum. We

thought it unnecessary, and we thought that it was likely to be extremely dangerous, likely to inflame political opinion and likely to lead to intimidation and violence.

In view of the refusal of Buganda to accept these proposals, my right honourable friend who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies felt obliged to impose a compromise. I feel that this compromise is unduly favourable to Buganda, which is the more powerful of the disputants, and is unfair to Bunyoro.

It is, of course, arguable that it is desirable that there should be a referendum in those two counties in order to ascertain what I think is already quite obvious—namely, that they wish to be returned to the Kingdom of Bunyoro. I cannot think, however, that it is reasonable to lay down that that referendum should not take place for two years, without any firm assurance that it will take place at any time.

My Lords, I will certainly heed what was urged by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne: that nothing I say should complicate the issue. Our desire was to act as peacemakers in this dispute, and I am still hoping that peace may come as a result of the compromise that has been imposed. My Lords, we said that it was most desirable that this dispute should be settled before independence.

We foresaw that there was a great danger that under the 1961 constitution the Prime Minister of Uganda would be dependent upon a bloc of representatives from Buganda, and we said in paragraph 103 of our Report “that the Federal status in an independent country, which Buganda is to enjoy from October 9, 1962, would make it relatively easy for the Kabaka’s Government, if it so desired, to obstruct the implementation of a settlement.”

And we said in paragraph 105 that “if a Prime Minister of an independent Uganda were dependent upon the Buganda bloc for staying in office, he would find it difficult to support any concession to the Bunyoro.” My Lords, that is exactly what has happened.

The 21 representatives of Buganda are all nationalists, and Mr. Obote is dependent upon their support for remaining in office. It therefore appears to me to be important that the demands which were made by both Parties in another place should be heard, and that an assurance should be given by the present Government of Uganda that the referendum will be carried out at a reasonably early time.

I share the doubts expressed by my noble friend Lord Ward of Witley, that the passage of time may not necessarily lead to an assuaging of these passions, but that in fact the feelings  may become more inflamed  as time passes. I am quite sure, therefore, that the next thing which should happen to make a settlement likely would be that some assurance should be given that the referendum will in fact be held.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, although, perhaps, the speeches which have been made in your Lordships’ House this afternoon will not be so closely scrutinised in this country in view of other speeches which are being made at the same time to-day, it is quite certain that they will be very closely scrutinised in Uganda. I am not going to go into the details of the negotiations which led my right honourable friend the previous Colonial Secretary to reach the decision to which he came. But I can tell your Lordships this: he did not reach this decision without the most careful consideration, and without long and patient discussion with the panties concerned. I have taken note, of course, of what noble Lords have said about the question of an assurance that the referendum should be held.

It is, of course, the earnest desire of us all—those of the Commission and all of us in this House—that this decision will, in the end, be proved to be right. I, for my part, have a very considerable degree of optimism that it will so turn out, for the reasons which have been so admirably stated by other speakers in this debate this afternoon: that there is among the people of Uganda a clear sense of nationhood; a realisation that if their country is to continue to be, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, described it, an oasis of calm and stability, it will be necessary for them to work together in a spirit of compromise. The noble Lord, Lord Twining, with his great knowledge of the country, referred to the necessity for political stability in order to attract the necessary development capital. Here again it has been our hope that the actions of Her Majesty’s Government will indeed ensure the political stability which is so necessary for the attraction of investment capital to Uganda.

I have no doubt that the good wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who knows the country well, will be well received when they are read in Uganda. In conclusion, I should like to add my own words in praise of Mr. Obote. The solution which Her Majesty’s Government have decided upon was a great test of Mr. Obote’s courage. It will require courage for him to carry out the responsibility which he has assumed, the responsibility of the administration of the two lost counties.

****

Source: UGANDA
INDEPENDENCE BILL
( Hansard, 26 July 1962)