The Basoga – one of the biggest communities in Uganda that prided organized central governance before the advent of colonialism – are influenced and almost incapacitated by the Uganda Constitution 1995, which  has distorted traditional and cultural leadership of the once powerful kingdom.

The constitution vests all power and authority in the hands of the president and makes the Kyabazinga (Busoga king) subject to the president of Uganda, presidential choices, stemming from the absolute power that the Constitution 1995 necessarily invests in the president, ends up disempowering and devaluing the institution of Kyabazinga.

In fact, the president has used employment and money to confuse the roles of a Kyabazinga in the traditional, cultural and spiritual and socio-political set up of Busoga.

Meanwhile, by constitutionalising the Chwezi as indigenous groups, the Uganda Constitution 1995 creates a leeway for the Chwezi who by virtue of the Luwero Bush War captured the instruments of power and now dominate political power in Uganda, to access anything, often at the disadvantage of the indigenes. “Anything” includes political offices, appointments and resources (natural and unnatural).

Therefore, although the government of President Tibuhaburwa Museveni restored something akin to kingdoms, but depoliticised it to create powerless so-called cultural heads, it disadvantaged these institutions (including the Kyabazinga) and peoples therein visa-vis the constitutionalised Chwezi groups.  

As I will show elsewhere in the treatise the president appointed the Kyabazinga an ambassador for special duties) in his office and gives him both a monthly allowance as a titular head of Busoga and a salary as an ambassador in his office. Besides, genetic penetration of Busoga through marriages between the Basoga and the children and grandchildren of the Chwezi today represented mainly by the Hima of Ankole and the Tutsi of Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo, is peaking. The Chwezi believe that whoever has their genes and blood belongs to them. Indeed, genetic penetration is disorganising Busoga culturally.

Busoga as one of the ancient traditional-cultural entities in Uganda

Busoga is only one of the 15 traditional nations that the white man found in the area he called British Protectorate of Uganda in the nineteenth century when he came with the Bible and gun, not so much to introduce God to us as to introduce the Gospel of Jesus Christ because the Basoga already knew God but did not know Jesus Christ and his gospel. The other traditional nations were Acholi, Ankole, Buganda, Bugisu, Bukedi, Bunyoro, Karamoja, Kigezi, Lango, Madi, Sebei, Teso, Toro and West Nile. (Table 1) shows a list of the indigenous groups of Uganda, including the Banyarwanda and Basongora who are Cwezi.

The Tutsi were amalgamated under the Banyarwanda while the Hima were amalgamated under Banyankore, which in the past referred more to the Bairu to separate them from the ruling Hima. All the nations were degraded to tribes, which were not known to exist in the whole of Africa but existed in Europe in general and England in particular. include

I should mention the Bantu indigenous groups in Uganda the Baganda, Basoga, Bagwere, Batoro, Bakiga, Banyankole (Bairu), Bafumbira, Bagisu, Banyoro, Basamia, Banyole, and Bakonjo and Banyara

The Uganda Constitution 1995 includes Banyarwanda (Tutsi), Hima and Basongora in the list of indigenous groups of Uganda (Table 1) yet they are what remained of the Chwezi that came into Uganda from Ethiopia, occupied the land of the Nyoro people who called them Bahuma because when they sang they hummed like a bee, and established the Chwezi Dynasty and the extensive Kitara Kingdom, that replaced the Batembuzi Dynasty and Kingdom.

Table 1. Uganda’s Indigenous Groups as at 1st February, 1926 (Article 10 a) (Third Schedule, Uganda Constitution1995)

__________________________________________________________________________________

Acholi                          Banyara           Jopadhola        Nubi

Pokot                           Alur                 Banyarwanda   Jie                   

Babukusu                     Banyankore      Joham              So (Tepeth)

Babwisi                        Baruli               Kakwa             Vonoma

Bafumbira                    Basamia           Karimojong      Sabiny

Baganda                       Banyoro           Kebu (Okebu)

Bagisu                          Basoga              Kiku

Bagugu                        Basongora        Kumam

Bagwe                          Batoro              Langi

Bagwere                       Batuku             Lend

Bahehe                          Batwa

Bahororo                      Chope             Lugbara

Bakenyi                       Dodoth             Madi

Bakiga                         Ethur                Mening

Bakonzo                       Ethur                Mvuba

Banyabindi                  Ik (Teso)         Napore

Banyankore                  Iteso                Nyangia

________________________________________________________________________________

These traditional-cultural nations have been broken into numerous small entities called districts, some of which are unviable, by Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Museveni, not so much to enhance development and make social services easily available as to enhance power and control from the centre to the periphery. This has been called the districtisation or bantustanisation of Uganda. As if this is not bad enough, the districts have also been broken into too many parishes and sub-counties or constituencies to increase the numerical strength of President Tibuhaburwa Museveni’s in the councils and the parliament of Uganda respectively. The breaking down of Uganda into numerous sub-entities has disconnected peoples and interfered with the cultural integrity of Ugandans. 

Precolonial Ankole was originally occupied by a Bantu people called Banyankole. They are primarily found in the southwestern part of the country, in what was historically known as the Ankole Kingdom. The first Omugabe (king) of Ankole was Ruhinda. His approximate reign dates are 1430 to 1446. The famous Ntare School was named so in memory of the titular King/Crown Prince Ntare IV of Ankole (the Lion) the son of Omugabe Gasyonga II of Ankole. 

Pre-colonial Rwanda was originally occupied by the Twa indigenous group, which was closely followed by the Hutu, probably between the 5th and 11th centuries. The Tutsi arrived at the beginning of the 14th century. Gihanga, the son of Nkuba Lightning, the lord of heaven, was the founder of the Rwanda mystical kingdom, the cultural hero who brought fertility and prosperity, a great hunter. He became the first king of Rwanda. He married a Rwanda princess to become the founder of the dynasty.

Precolonial Burundi was originally occupied by the Twa, and around 1000 CE the Hutu arrived. The  Tutsi between the 14th and 17th century. Ntare I Kivimira Savuyimba Semunganzashamba Rushatsi Cambarantama was the king of Burundi from 1675 to 1709. He was a legendary descendant of the Ntwero family, and the first king of Burundi. His mother’s name was Inanjonaki. Ntare V of Burundi (born Charles Ndizeye; on December 2, 1947 – 29 April 1972) was the last king (mwami) of Burundi, reigning from July to November 1966. Until his accession, he was known as Crown Prince Charles Ndizeye.

It is interesting to note that Burundi and Ankole both had kings by the name Ntare, which clearly shows the linkage between the Tutsi and the Hima ethnically. The Rwandese Tutsi, Burundian Tutsi and Hima of Ankole in Uganda are all concealed by the Uganda Constitution 1995 under the indigenous group “Banyankole” yet they are not Bantu but Chwezi-Cushitic people who sprang from people who migrated from Ethiopia, became Bahuma in Bunyoro, captured the instruments of power there, started the Chwezi dynasty and Kitara Kingdom, replacing the Tembezi Dynasty, then, following the invasion of Kitara by the dark-skinned Nilotics from the north, migrated southward, becoming Bahima in Ankole, the land of Banyankole and Tutsi in Rwanda and Burundi.

Interestingly, the name Kaima in Busoga is related to the name Kahima of the Hima who live among the Banyankole and actually ruled them as kings (Bagabe). Bahima, Batutsi, Bahororo and Banyamulenge are ethnically related with three principal characteristics:

(1) Whenever they move to a new place, they adopt local names and local languages.

(2) They dominate the indigenous people.

(3) Their men do not marry women from other ethnic groups except from their own.

(4). They establish kingdoms and create wealth by whatever means (including corruption) when they capture the instruments of power.

When President Tibuhaburwa Museveni captured the instruments of power, helped by refugees from Rwanda, Burundi and Mulenge (Banyamulenge) in 1986 he refused to revive anything like Obugabe of Ankole, preferring to call himself Ssabagabe. One school of thought argues that President Tibuhaburwa Museveni had a bigger vision, ostensibly to bring all the Chwezi and or Cushites in East Africa, Great Lakes Region and Nile Basin under one local imperial power of Chezi-Cushite despite his use of the terms unity and economic development to push the agenda. Whatever the case, focus on the Chwezi-Cushite superiority complex is likely to hurt Busoga in particular and Uganda in general in diverse dimensions – belonging, identity, traditions, culture, spirituality and political development, to name but a few.

The tendency to adopt the names of the local indigenous communities, to dominate them, to infiltrate cultures through intermarriages, to create wealth in ways that benefit them at the expense of the locals, and to use money to stupefy the locals together end up disadvantaging the indigenous communities in terms of political, economic and social development. Busoga, which used to be the second most developed region after Buganda, now ranks as one of the two most impoverished areas in Uganda.

Adopting the names of the locals implies that opportunities such as jobs, education and political resources to the locals will be reduced, as they will automatically flow to the Chwezi-Cushites disguised as Basoga or other traditional nationalities. Representations to councils, parliament or cabinet will increasingly be grabbed by those carrying names of the locals disguisedly.

Obviously they will be completely averse to the traditions, culture, and spirituality of the locals and their capturing political leadership of the locals will retard the political development of the locals. While the impression created with wealth creation is that the Basoga and other traditional nationalities are benefiting from wealth creation, the truth is that it is the people with disguised names that are benefitting. Unfortunately research at our universities is oriented away from investigation of these cultural, social and economic realities.

Threats to Lusoga language

The language spoken by the Basoga is Lusoga, a Bantu language in the Niger-Congo family. As in the Bantu languages in the Lake Victoria Region, nouns among the Basoga are reflected by changing prefixes: human beings are indicated by prefix Ba (plural) and Mu (singular); name of the country (region) Bu; the language Lu and an adjective from these Ki. Thus, the region is called Busoga; the people are Basoga (singular, Musoga); the language is Lusoga; and “of the Basoga,” Kisoga.

Linguistic interaction also provided a basis for cultural cooperation. To coexist with their neighbours, the Basoga, who live near the border areas, adopted dialects that reflect their locations. Examples include groups known as the Bakenhe and the Banyala, who live on the eastern and western basins of Lake Kyoga, respectively. Although the languages (Lukenhe and Lunyala) of these groups cannot be classified as Lusoga, they are similar to Lusoga.

Lusoga is divided into two dialects: Lupakooyo, a dialect similar to Runyoro, was traditionally spoken in parts of north Busoga, and the Lutenga dialect was used in the south. Lulamogi is not really a language of the Basoga but a slight distortion of Lugwere language of the Bagwere of Bukedi. As pointed out elsewhere in this treatise Bulamogi, the land of Balamogi, and Bukono, the Land of Bakono, were excised from the Busiki Chiefdom and given to two refugee brothers from Gogonya in Bugwere – Zibondo and Nkono – respectively, by Kisiki Nantamu the ruler of Busiki. The Basiki also speak a language similar to that spoken by Balamogi and Bakono, indicating the linguistic influence of the immigrants from Bugwere.

Aikhenvald, A. Y and Anne Storch (2013) write that today Lusoga, the Language of Basoga, is a major regional language threatened by both Luganda and English and is rapidly losing ground. The Cultural Centre for Basoga Studies in Jinja is doing everything possible to preserve the language. This is important. The Basoga use Lusoga to perpetuate their values and culture and to conserve their medicines, which are being revitalised as access to modern medicines become expensive and difficult.

The tendency of the Chwezi-Cushites to grab the property, identity and the names of  Basoga ends up distorting Basoga society with people who do not really belong nor share identity with them.

Busoga in the past

Most writings on Busoga have created the impression that there was no Busoga before about 300 years ago. But Busoga is a water rich area with a large part of Lake Victoria within its territory, and the source of the longest river in the world – the Nile – which is mentioned in the Old Testament of the Bible (Amos 8:8: Will not the land tremble for this, and all who live in it mourn? The whole land will rise like the Nile; it will be stirred up and then sink like the river of Egypt.) has its source in Busoga. It is important to ask: Why should such an area at the source of the Nile not have a prehistory but Egypt at the mouth of the Nile has a prehistory?

Clearly, researchers in ancient history have done a disservice to Busoga.

A few years ago, I interviewed a young academic, Mahir Balunywa, to find out whether Busoga has a prehistory. I had learnt that he was very interested in the process of deconstructing the history of Busoga to include a prehistoric perspective and free it from distortions of the immigrants into the area for selfish ends. According to Mahir Balunywa, the ecology and mineral wealth of Busoga could have played a part in many writers of history ignoring its history in favour of the histories of Buganda and Bunyoro

“There is no way the God, and by extension, Nature purposed that an area – Busoga has everything – minerals, water, rivers and lakes and he and nature did not purpose that there were people too with their own civilization” said Mahir Balunywa.

I agreed with him. If life started in East Africa, as Dr Leakey’s archaeological work suggests, then the most likely area to be the cradle of mankind was the area today known as Busoga and the surrounding areas. Therefore, Busoga has been very integral to the bioecology, history and environment, which includes western Kenya. We should take its environmental history very seriously

According to Juma Kwayera (pers. comm,) the proprietor of Tell Media of Kenya and a Luhya by indigeneity the Soga, Ganda and Luhya of Kenya have an interesting interconnected history that history writers have ignored. The three peoples were highly politically organised as kingdoms in ancient times and very friendly. They had diplomatic ties, and hence, envoys, between them, before the British colonialists arrived towards the end of the 1880s. Juma Kwayera says he does not know whether the kingdoms or nations of Busoga, Buganda and Luhya started simultaneously at the same time and by the same people. He tasks researchers to rethink the histories of the three peoples to capture prehistoric times adequately. So much is left out of recorded history. This is one of the disadvantages of colonialism. Colonialists and occupiers write only what meets and perpetuates their interests at the expense of the host peoples.

Juma Kwayera (pers. comm.) observes that although well-organised before the colonialists disorganised them for selfish interests, the Ganda and Soga in Uganda and the Luhya of western Kenya have never been loud about political power. They tend to serve power. They served the colonial power. They are serving current powers. It is no surprise that the Basoga say “Omwami Kyakobye Zena Kyenkoba” (What the boss said is what I say). This contradicts the propaganda that the Basoga and Baganda significantly participated in the concealed genocide of Luwero Triangle dominated by Tutsi refugees and the consequence of which was the capture of the instruments of power and the State of Uganda by Tibuhaburwa Museveni and his rebel outfit in 1986. They are, therefore, unlikely to take up arms against a reigning power. There are the dominant indigenous groups in Uganda but cannot lead change, which is exploited by the oppressor.

According to the 2024 human population census in Uganda, Busoga subregion of Uganda, hosts 4,372,349 people, the second largest proportion, 9.5 per cent, of the country’s population. Buganda has the largest population in Uganda and hosts 12,989,426 people, which is 28.3 per cent of Uganda’s population. Busoga’s percentage population is a big proportion, considering the country has over 56 different cultural traditions/indigenous groups (Table 2) constituting a total population of 49,924,252.

For God and My Country

• A Tell report / By Oweyegha-Afunaduula / Environmental Historian and Conservationist Center for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis (CCTAA), Seeta, Mukono, Uganda.

About the Centre for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis (CCTAA)

The CCTAA was innovated by Hyuha Mukwanason, Oweyegha-Afunaduula and Mahir Balunywa in 2019 to the rising decline in the capacity of graduates in Uganda and beyond to engage in critical thinking and reason coherently besides excellence in academics and academic production. The three scholars were convinced that after academic achievement the world outside the ivory tower needed graduates that can think critically and reason coherently towards making society and the environment better for human gratification. They reasoned between themselves and reached the conclusion that disciplinary education did not only narrow the thinking and reasoning of those exposed to it but restricted the opportunity to excel in critical thinking and reasoning, which are the ultimate aim of education. They were dismayed by the truism that the products of disciplinary education find it difficult to tick outside the boundaries of their disciplines; that when they provide solutions to problems that do not recognise the artificial boundaries between knowledges, their solutions become the new problems. They decided that the answer was a new and different medium of learning and innovating, which they characterised as “The Centre for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis” (CCTAA). They saw their innovation as a new opportunity to demystify disciplinary education and open up academia and society to new, interlinked knowledge and solutions to complex or wicked problems that disciplinary education cannot solve. To this end, the CCTAA promotes linking of knowledge through the knowledge production systems of Interdisciplinarity, Crossdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity and Extradisciplinarity (or non-disciplinarity), which allow for multistakeholder team knowledge production instead of individualised knowledge production, which glorifies individual knowledge production, achievement and glorification.

The issue of alternative analysis towards deconstruction and reconstruction of knowledge is taken seriously at the CCTAA. Most recorded knowledge needs deconstruction and reconstruction within the context of new and different knowledge production systems listed here in. Therefore, instead of disciplinary academics, scholars or professionals, we can begin to produce new ones. We can, for example have professors of interdisciplinarity, crossdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity and extradisciplinarity or non-disciplinarity. Besides, academics, scholars and/or professionals, civil servants, researchers, etc can choose to reorient themselves via the CCTAA and become enhanced learners via the new and different knowledge systems.

It is attitudinal change to thinking, reasoning and practice in knowledge production and use towards solving simple and complex problems! We are all learning beings, and by virtue of the construction of our brains we are supposed to continuously learn and to be good at thinking correctly and reasoning effectively.  As learners who can engage in critical thinking and alternative analysis, we become more open to change and alternatives to development, transformation and progress of society, embrace change, imagine possibilities, learn through the activity of experience, and rejuvenate ourselves and ourselves continuously. The CCTAA is committed to enabling this to happen. It does not abhor resistance but creates opportunities for meaningful resistance that opens opportunities for all.