How Ugandan cultural leaders are elected, gazetted within the Law

By Steven Masiga

The election and gazettement of cultural leaders in Uganda is a process steeped in both tradition and legal frameworks. However, Ugandan statutes are often hesitant to explicitly use the term election when referring to the selection of cultural leaders. The rationale behind this reluctance lies in the fact that there is no officially designated returning officer to validate the process, as would be the case in political elections.

This brings us to two key legal questions: What does the law say about the gazettement of cultural leaders in Uganda? And why did Parliament anticipate the likelihood of disputes after these so-called elections?

Additionally, one might ask whether Ugandan communities have the legal authority to enact their own laws governing cultural institutions. The answer, at least for now, is a clear no. The Cultural Leaders Act (CLA) of 2011 does not provide any openings for direct community participation in law-making regarding cultural institutions.

What is the Legal Framework?

Uganda’s Constitution and the Cultural Leaders Act of 2011 serve as the primary statutes guiding the selection and recognition of cultural leaders. These laws apply uniformly across the country, from the Toro and Bunyoro kingdoms to the Bugisu region and beyond, ensuring a structured approach to the gazettement of cultural leaders.

The most authoritative legal provision on this matter is Article 246 of the Ugandan Constitution, which defines the role and recognition of cultural leaders within their respective communities.

But how exactly does the gazettement process unfold? According to the law, once a community has chosen its cultural leader, disputes may arise regarding who among the contenders is the rightful heir to the position. When such contestation occurs, the Minister of Gender, Labour, and Social Development (MGLSD) is empowered under Section 15(1) of the Institution of Traditional and Cultural Leaders Act to intervene. The minister convenes a mediation process involving elders and relevant stakeholders to resolve the impasse.

A prime example of this process in action is the selection of the Umukuka III of the Bamasaba people following the cultural elections of 2020. Several claimants who lost in the selection process disputed the outcome, leading to a legal and administrative deadlock.

To resolve this, the Minister of Gender, Hon. Betty Amongi, invoked constitutional and statutory provisions to guide the dispute resolution. Article 246(2) of the Ugandan Constitution, read together with Section 15(1) of the Institution of Traditional and Cultural Leaders Act, provided a legal framework for mediation.

At the time, the minister also invoked Section 16(1) of the same Act, granting the late Umukuka Emeritus Wilson Weasa Wamimbi the authority to oversee the process and report back.

In accordance with the law, Umukuka Emeritus Wamimbi convened a mediation team consisting of 26 clan heads from Masabaland. This group met at Mbale District Hall, where, after 12 hours of deliberation in the presence of all claimants, they unanimously agreed that His Highness Jude Mike Mudoma was the rightful Umukuka III.

Mudoma’s election as Umukuka III and gazettement were subsequently conducted in full compliance with Uganda’s legal framework, including:

• The Constitution of Uganda (Article 246 and State Cultural Objective XXIV)
• The Local Government Act
• The Institution of Traditional and Cultural Leaders Act, 2011 (Sections 16(1) and 6, as amended)
• Other relevant international protocols

The Importance of Elders in Dispute Resolution

This case highlights the strength of Uganda’s traditional mediation system, where elders are vested with the legal authority to adjudicate cultural disputes. Their role in resolving leadership contests within cultural institutions is crucial, as it ensures that disputes are settled within the communities rather than being escalated to courts of law.

In fact, courts should exercise restraint when faced with such matters. If any legal contestation arises regarding the gazettement of a cultural leader, courts must analyze the prescribed legal framework and the legislative intent behind Uganda’s municipal laws. In doing so, they should uphold the principle of fidelity to the law, ensuring that the directives left by lawmakers are followed to the letter.

In conclusion, therefore, the legal process for electing and gazetting cultural leaders in Uganda is well-defined but often misunderstood. The mediation model applied in the case of Umukuka III demonstrates that customary authority, when exercised within the legal framework, is an effective mechanism for dispute resolution.

Moving forward, policymakers and cultural leaders must continue to uphold these legal provisions while ensuring that communities remain actively engaged in preserving their heritage.

About the Author: Steven Masiga is the Spokesperson of the Bamasaba Cultural Institution and a Master’s student of Law.