The period between 1962 and 1966 can be described as the period of drama in the development of the constitutional history of Uganda. It was the transitional period in which the independence constitution went on trial and was found to be largely unworkable. Morris and Read maintain that “perhaps more than any other modern constitution in Africa” this constitution of Uganda was essentially homegrown.
After the onset of independence, Uganda as a newly independent state witnessed a time of tension and pressure arising as a result of the grappling process of the actual framework of governance derived from the constitution, though the process yielded some fruits, they were later compromised and undermined by the unclarified and unaddressed issues that became great loopholes and with time the state had to witness a failed system. These included the question issues of who would be the real head of state, the question/matter of the unclarified unitary-federal and Uganda-Buganda stands, Bunyoro-Buganda relations over lose counties, opportunistic tendencies and overall prior problems of prior series of events in 1900 which with time cultivated autocracy tension and greed for power necessitating various crisis, and is fundamental in constitutional history-making as explained below;
Acquisition of independence by 1962 and the grappling process of making the constitution that followed from 1962 – 1965 cultivated events, that raised tension, pressure, mistrust, Autocratic tendencies, and sectarianism which all with time made it inevitable to witness a crisis known to be the Kabaka crisis. the state acquired independence at a time when it was not ready to manage one and this was witnessed by the struggling constitution process, and the loopholes it had that with time undermined its relevance by giving birth to bigger problems thus leaving the crisis a test of time.
In the first place, the Constitution created a hotchpotch form of government that was both federal and unitary, Although allowing for elements of each form sounded somehow considerate and fair, the Constitution was sufficiently vague for it did not demarcate the boundaries of or distinguish between the territories of Uganda, it consisted of fire- federal states and of these Buganda enjoyed more powers than the other four and even some were not described as kingdoms but rather territories like Busoga which sounded humiliating and unfair. So it remained unclear whether it was the non-kingdom districts of the country that formed the unitary government of Uganda. So as a result the 1962 failure to answer the tricky question made it inevitable to witness a crisis as a result of greed for power and a failed system.
The existence of two categories of members of the National Assembly necessitated a failed system and cultivated greed for power. Those from Buganda were elected and nominated by her lukiiko as opposed to the rest of the members including those from other kingdoms directly elected by the people. This difference made the Baganda members appear as delegates of their legislature rather than representatives of the Buganda electorate and yet the national assembly was that of a unitary state therefore this made it inevitable to witness drama and chaos by 1966 and it can also be concluded that when Uganda was described federal, semi-federal or unitary, its is not the form of government that was meant but rather powers of government and authority.
Lack of cooperation between the president who was Mutesa and the cabinet including the prime minister rendered the system already a failed one and left it for time to prove its fate. Sir Edward Mutesa as president was constitutionally required to act on the advice of the cabinet, while as the Kabaka of Buganda, he would act on the advice of the Lukiiko, this made it inevitable that issues would rise to split his two personalities, and its also true that at least other beings might have managed to act in the two capacities and resolve the conflicts but not Mutesa (Sir Edward). He was a man used to making personal decisions in matters of state and would find it hard to abide by the constitutional provisions that gave him minimum powers, it is also true as he revealed in his book that he never accepted Milton Obote as a national leader and on the contrary mistrusted and despised him because the orders of government would be coming from a commoner who by chance happened to be the prime minister of the state, he always also got annoyed whenever the prime minister had an opportunity to address the nation on some important matter and this showed greed for powers thus the 1966 crisis.
The transfer of the counties of Bunyoro was a humiliating experience for Buganda and was perceived as another piece of evidence of the treachery practiced by the UPC to make it worse even the general public in Buganda joined the commotion that followed the transfer, Katikiro Kintu’s administration was blamed for the humiliation and forced to resign and with this, there was no longer any doubt that the Kabaka’s government worked now in opposition to the central government, the Kabaka for some time continued to be a constitutional head of two bitterly opposed governments until he bitterly decided to throw his weight behind the weaker one thus amounting to greed for power that witnessed a failed system thus the occurrence of the 1966 constitutional landmark.
Power distribution by the independence constitution and failure to care much about the wishes of the electorate remained a great weakness that undermined the life span of the government, the national assembly was handicapped by the federal powers, and it had no authority to legislate on the offices of the rulers, their powers, obligations, and duties, it could not determine public holiday or festival of these states and with all these the system had to fail
Actual confrontation and direct accusation of the Kabaka who was also the president of plotting against the government flared up anger among the Kabaka and his subjects which issues increased unrest with the governance and this was worsened by the actual storming of the king’s palace by the national army under the leadership of the newly elected commander General Idi Amin all increased confusion, showed evidence of autocracy and greed for power and otherwise witnessed or declared the system a failed one by 1966.
Buganda’s separatist tendencies and its ongoing demands for its independence that is to say a federal government within a unitary state as thought and wished by the national assembly and prime minister Milton Obote, cultivated disagreement with the leadership of the state, lack of cooperation and mistrust which events made it very impossible to witness a failed system after all that greed and worse of it all having the Kabaka as president and Obote as the prime minister and without powers of each being defined by the constitution.
The composition of the leadership that’s to say the president and the prime minister is said to have been just a marriage of convenience it was just a question time to prove its fate. The fact that the president and the prime minister campaigned for a different mode of governance that is to say as Obote worked hard to witness a unitary, Mutesa II worked against it for his federal independence within Uganda, so much disagreement on governance yet composition remained not clearly shown. Necessited a crisis to undermine the intentions and ambitions of one of them against the one of the other to prevail and was just a question of time thus the marriage had to crumble not beyond 1966 thus the cause of Constitutional History.
Somehow the overall problems associated/expected to arise with newly independent governance could not see Uganda special, like the comments of Professor Y Ghai who stated that the result is that when a colony becomes independent and begins to plan its development programs, it finds itself saddled with a system of government that is not always suited to its needs.
after a period of governance in Uganda being shaped and determined by the white man and local Ugandans remained non actively participants in leadership or government affairs, it became practically impossible for them to be given a try and make no fatal era’s in trying to forge a way to go without the whiteman’s hand yet from long ago within kingdom and chiefdoms their autocratic tendencies and greed for little powers was still evident so faced with the whole country, ignorant, unskillful and unknowledgeable yet very greedy, selfish and enthusiastic it made it impossible to witness a crisis that would be landmark in the constitutional making thus the Kabaka crisis 1966.
The rise of ambitious young leaders who lacked actual knowledge about governance and skills was driven only by enthusiasm and greed without knowledge which led to fatal mistakes in governance. More to say every member of the assembly and the army including the various parties was interested in the prime minister’s chairs this increased greed, autocracy which was evident in the dismissing of members in the assembly and army and unhealthy suspicions of plans to overthrow the government thus rendering a system a failed one by 1966 and shaping Uganda constitutional events.
Buganda’s greed for power, land, and expansionist tendencies, in particular, its enhancement on Bunyoro’s counties of Buyanga and Bugangayizi uncovered her greed and unfairness to other parts of the state which with time became an issue against her from the country of the part, the assembly and the Bunyoro in particular yet it was unwilling as per the famous case of Joseph Kazaraine V the Lukiiko (1963) EA 472 cultivated mistrust, tension, on the part of Buganda after losing the case on appeal and increased the desire to see Buganda in particular out of Uganda’s politics and increased the campaign against federal initiatives thus frustrating Buganda’s goals and increasing enmity between her and the national Assembly thus a marriage of conveniences could not continue beyond that point In time.
The role of the colonial government in the prior independence events. from early 1900 the colonial government treated Buganda as special and more privileged and it was upon it that it was able to forge a government in Uganda following the articles of the orders in the council of 1902 and 1920 which became instrumental in shaping governance up to today and after all that, the time of Sir Cohen as governor scared the interests of Buganda with his federation plans to make Buganda ready to oppose a unitary move from go there for being a minority to the whole state, as time went on it was able to witness the 1953 Kabaka crisis and the ongoing crisis was just a question of time.
The prior events, and reports made for example the Munster Report Commission (of 1961). Various meetings like the 1st and 2nd Marlborough conferences, the period from
1952 to 1958 witnessed the birth of political parties that could rise daily and fall shortly together opened up people’s eyes, cultivated agreements and disagreement, ambition, and tension, and concluded with some decisions that favored some groups against the other, with times all this laid concrete grounds for mistrust greed and autocracy that were at their pick at the time of acquisition of independence and the followed years to 1966 necessitating disorder within governance thus rendering a failed system by 1966 and making the crisis inevitable.
In conclusion, therefore, it is true that the Kabaka crisis that became an instrumental event in constitutional history was caused by greed for power as a result of a failed system to means that after the system had failed, greed increased as opportunists wanted to gain from it as explained above.