Bugisu Spokesperson Dismisses Rt. Hon. Nathan Nandala Mafabi Claims on Umukuuka Legitimacy
- alphanews
- 20 hours ago
- 2 min read
The Spokesperson of the Bugisu Cultural Institution, Hon. Steven Masiga, has issued a strongly worded response to recent remarks by Budadiri County MP and FDC Secretary General, Rt. Hon. Nathan Nandala Mafabi,
defending the legitimacy of Umukuuka Sir Jude Mike Mudoma and the legal foundation of the Bugisu cultural leadership.
Masiga’s reaction follows statements attributed to Nandala, in which the legislator reportedly raised concerns on two key issues: the implications of the oath taken by Umukuka in 2020 and the legality of the Inzu Ya Masaba constitution that underpins the institution.
*High Court Ruling and the 2020 Oath*
Addressing the first issue, Masiga argued that the oath taken by HRH Jude Mike Mudoma in 2020 was effectively overtaken by events, particularly a High Court ruling in a case involving Mudoma and the Attorney General.
According to Masiga, the court declined to compel government to gazette Mudoma through a writ of mandamus. Instead, the presiding judge directed that the dispute be resolved through established constitutional and statutory mechanisms governing cultural institutions. He cited provisions under Article 246(2) of the Constitution and relevant sections of the Cultural Leaders Act, which outline procedures for resolving leadership disputes within cultural institutions.
Masiga noted that these legal pathways were later invoked in July 2023, leading to what he described as a proper and lawful resolution of the leadership impasse.
Legitimacy of the Inzu Ya Masaba Constitution
On the second issue, Masiga dismissed concerns over the Inzu Ya Masaba constitution, arguing that its provisions are subordinate to the Constitution of Uganda. He maintained that the existence and recognition of the Bugisu cultural institution are firmly anchored in Article 246 of the national Constitution, as well as the Traditional and Cultural Leaders Act of 2011 and the National Cultural Policy of 2019.
He emphasized that even if elements of the Inzu Ya Masaba constitution were found defective, the supremacy of the national Constitution would prevail, thereby validating Mudoma’s position as Umukuka.
*Call for Unity, Warning Against Parallel Leadership*
Masiga further referenced past disagreements over the rightful cultural leader, noting that such disputes were resolved through constitutional means—a process he claimed had previously received guidance from Nandala himself.
In a direct appeal, Masiga urged the legislator to support the current leadership rather than challenge it, warning against attempts to impose an alternative cultural leader on the Bamasaaba community.
“The institution of a cultural leader is guided by law and tradition, not individual preference,” Masiga asserted, cautioning that any efforts to create parallel leadership structures would face resistance from the community.
Masiga revealed that the Bugisu Cultural Institution is preparing a publication detailing the achievements of Umukuka Mudoma, which he said would further consolidate public understanding and support for the current leadership.
The ongoing exchange highlights persistent tensions within the Bugisu cultural leadership, with legal interpretations and constitutional provisions at the center of the debate. As both sides continue to assert their positions, the matter underscores the broader challenges of managing cultural institutions within Uganda’s legal framework.
Comments