Bujagali dam’s corrupt investment environment tells a lot about environmental abuse and brazen breaches of cultural rights of indigenous. Ugandan President Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Museveni and Rwandan President Paul Kagame, have etched their names in history of Uganda’s environmental and cultural destruction.

Uganda’s new generation of materialistic leadership is today dominated by people who spent five years in the bush (1981-86) robbing banks, cooperative unions, et cetera. They are now brazenly looting Uganda’s natural resources and depleting the national treasury by allocating taxpayers’ money to themselves and to preferred so-called investors who are predominantly foreigners from India and China.

The ‘new’ investors include Bujagali Electricity Limited (BEL Ltd), the local firm behind the construction of Bujagali dam, Tri-Star Apparel, Hassan Bassajjabalaba, Phenix Logistics Uganda Ltd and BM Technical Services Ltd, a firm in Western Uganda.

Apart from BEL Ltd, all the others were on the verge of collapsing but were bailed out by the NRM Government on the orders of President Tibuhaburwa Museveni, leading to enormous loss of public money. Besides, the then minister of energy and mineral development, Richard Kaijuka, was sacked from the board of the World Bank for soliciting a bribe of $10,000 from the initial investor in the Bujagali dam process, Nile Independent Power.

According to the Daily Monitor newspaper of October 24, 2007, “Government went on to forgive Tri-Star, Bassajjabalaba and Phenix debts”. Citing Keith Muhakanizi, the then Deputy Secretary to the Treasury, the Daily Monitor said the government planned to write off about Ush1.6 trillion in bad loans and bailouts to businessmen Bassajjabalaba of Kampala International University, Villupilai Kananathan of Tri-Star, Yuichi Kashiwada and BM Technical Services Ltd.

All genuine Uganda citizens should remember the following:

• In 2004 President Museveni directed the Central Bank of Uganda to bail out Bassajjabalaba with Ush21 billion of taxpayers’ money
• In 2005 he ordered a Ush13.4 billion ($3.6 million) tax waver for Bassajjabalaba
• The defunct Tri-Star Apparels, created with President Museveni’s leading role, to export textiles to America, consumed Ush20 billion ($5.38 million) of taxpayers’ money in government loans ordered by President Museveni
• To get Tri-Star started President Museveni ordered the guarantee of $5 million (Ush9.2 billion) to it, with a $7.5 million (Ush13.8 billion) Central Bank of Uganda guarantee and a further $3,5 million (Ush6.2 billion) obtained from DFCU Bank in 2003 with a $4 million Central Bank of Uganda guarantee ordered by President Museveni
• In September 2007, President Museveni directed that some $3 million (Ush5.7 billion) be given to Phenix Logistics, ostensibly to boost Uganda’s exports to the US initiated AGOA market.

Citing the Auditor General’s Report for 2006 Government loans to private enterprises amounting to 221.6 billion were not recognised in government financial statements. This smelt of corruption. It could mean that the President, whom the Uganda Constitution 1995 says is the fountain of honour is, through his order of loans and bailouts to non-performing business people and businesses, is the fountain and pillar of corruption in Uganda.

This could explain why the Bujagali dam process was on course and unbelievably cost US $ 850, 000. Given the institutional corruption that was growing supersonically in the country, the cost of Bujagali dam jumped the US $ 1.2 billion, thereby becoming the most expensive dam in dam-building history of the whole world. In the wake of the construction of Bujagali dam, the spectacular Bujagali Falls the known as one of the seven wonders of the world, were no more, the indigenous flora on the small islands were no more and the ecology, spirituality and Bujagali-based cultural heritage of Busoga were dammed out.

A closer look at the history, cultural diversity  and religion of the Basoga may shed light on how President Museveni was able to execute the looting of the economic pillars the community looked up to to conserve Kiira (River Nile) for ages.

The disintegration of centres of power preceded the colonial ‘divide and rule’ political strategy. Here is a brief account:

Development, cultural and spiritual abuse of Basoga

Let us go back to the Basoga who were the most adversely affected by the corruption-driven Bujagali dam in Uganda. The character of the Basoga – that of appearing docile when in fact they are not – was exploited by the proponents of Bujagali dam project to convince other Ugandans, the rest of humankind, the World Bank, bilateral credit institutions and potential developers that the Basoga do not oppose the project but that it is “pseudo-environmental groups” in Uganda and abroad that were frustrating it. NAPE and International Rivers Network (IRN) were frequently mentioned among such groups. It is, however, important to mention that the Basoga, distributed among many clans can be resolute when they choose to. They are known throughout Uganda for their “Bbe” meaning “NO”. It seems President Museveni’s government used its thorough knowledge of the structure and function of Busoga society and applied the British innovation of “divide and rule” so perfectly that it became difficult to get the Basoga to agree on the defence of their culturally and spiritually important Bujagali falls site. There was no congruence among the Basoga on the future of Bujagali Falls. Besides, it was easy for power to confuse them. They were told all of Busoga would be supplied with electricity but up to now the majority of Basoga have no access to hydropower. Even if they had, only a few would afford what is known worldwide as the most expensive electricity on the globe.

Busoga clanism, cultural Diversity and governance

There are an estimated 6,000 cultures of the world speaking as many languages (UNESCO, 1993). Of these between 4,000-5,000 are indigenous. Therefore, indigenous peoples make up between 70 and 80 per cent of the world’s cultural diversity (IUCN, 1997; Gray, 1999). Virtually all cultures are organised in clans. Although there is no precise definition, political science researchers generally refer to clanism as an informal social network characterised by an “extensive network of kin and fictive kin ties, or perceived and imagined kinship relations” (Minbaeva and Muratbekova-Touron citing Collins 2006).

On the other hand, clanism is an indigenous management concept used by humanity in different environmental settings to manage society and environment (eg, Minbaeva and Muratbekova-Touron, 2013). It reflects cultural diversity and governance systems in a given cultural group and environment. A cultural group can have many clans. Busoga is probably the most multi-clanned and multicultural society in Uganda and perhaps the whole world. There are 100 clans that are typically Basoga clans and over 200 that are migrant clans.  Busoga may be the most clanned group of people in the world of some 6000 clans. Busoga, being multi-clanned and multicultural shows a diversity of spiritualism many spirits belonging to the migrant clans.

I have already mentioned that the Busoga of Uganda is recognised by the Uganda Constitution 1995 as an indigenous community.  Therefore, they are among the indigenous cultures of the world.  it must be one of the largest cultures and, therefore, constituents of the cultural diversity of the world. In fact, the Basoga are the most clanned group of people in the whole world, with as many as 300 clans; some indigenous some exogenous. The Basoga are thus organised – culturally and spiritually – in some 300 clans.

Clanism in Busoga is an aspect of the biocultural and spiritual diversity of humanity. It is the creative diversity of the Basoga, which has restricted intra-clan marriages while allowing maximum inter-clan marriages among the group. A diverse gene pool for the ancient indigenous community has been preserved.

Unfortunately, the Basoga are both critically endangered and threatened because the Nile River, more specifically the Bujagali Falls, which is central to their culture and spirituality, was both critically endangered and threatened (see below and also Brosius, 1996, 1997). In fact Bujagali was erased from the face of the Earth for electricity Currently the threats to the Basoga are the proliferation of the grass culture seen in growing sugarcane and oil palm; mining of gold and rare earth minerals; militarisation and foreignization of Lake Victoria and the mining of its banks and bottom by the Chinese for sand and platinum; land grabbing mainly by people belonging to the grass culture (the nomadic-pastoral people of Tutsi origin) who are destroying Busoga’s agroecological systems and biocultural landscape; secondary settlement of the nomadic-pastoral people in connection with its mineral wealth.

Origins of Bulamogi and Bukono in Busoga

The people that have settled in Busoga have come mostly from Teso and Palisa. It is said that some of these became so influential that they became leaders of Busoga. For example, it is said that four brothers – Lamogi, Zibondo, Nkono and Nagwere – came to Busoga from a place called Wama in Gogonya of Palisa and settled in Busiki county as refugees. Their clan was Musooko.

Later an area called Bulamogi was created out of a portion of Busiki county by convincing the hereditary chief of that county – Kisiki Nantamu. It was for the benefit of the House of Zibondo that Bulamogi was created in memory of his brother, Lamogi who decided to go back to Gogonya. Simultaneously Bukono was created for the House of Nkono. The two houses – the Zibondo House and the Nkono House expanded in numbers. The men married the local Basiki. Apparently the Lugwere language infiltrated the whole of Busiki. This an area of history that has not been seriously critically study. It is important that scholars get interested to establish why Bulamogi and Bugabula have historically conflicted with each other ever since the institution of Kyabazinga was raised by the British colonialists to the highest political office in Busoga.

It is even, therefore, a distortion of facts when the Uganda Constitution 1995 reduces the institution of Kyabazinga to a mere cultural institution. It is politics when Bugabula and Bulamogi conflict over Kyabazingaship. It has nothing to do with the traditions, culture of the Basoga. It has everything to do with political development or underdevelopment of Busoga. In a way, the Uganda Constitution 1995, by reducing Kyabazinga to a cultural institution sought to retard the political development of Busoga and keep it in a state of conflict as its resources are stolen.

The Ancestry of the Nadiope Family

While the house of Nadiope was believed to have come from Teso and that of Wako from Palisa, they all claimed to be houses of Baise Ngobi clan. Sometimes Lamogi, Zibondo, Nagwere and Nkono descendants claim to belong to the Baise Igaga clan and at the same time claim to belong to the Baise Igaga clan and can be either according to convenience. It is said that the so-called incest among Baise Ngobi and Baise Igaga is due to these people who infiltrated the two clans and claim space in the two clans as and when they find it convenient. When the former Kyabazinga of Busoga,  Sir William Wilberforce Kadhumbula Gabula Nadiope II who was believed to be from the Baise Ngobi clan married off his daughter to his finance minister Bakaswiregha, the latter posed as member of the Igaga clan but when this same person married from the Igaga clan he posed as a member of the Ngobi Clan.

There is a historical account given by one school of thought which goes that Yosiya Nadiope I, the father of Sir William Wilberforce Kadhumbula Gabula Nadiope II, arrived in the chieftainship of Bugabula with another person in 1911.

When he arrived, he was asked how many they were and he said “ediope” meaning two. When asked where they came from, they said Teso. The Gabula of the time is said to have been very hospitable. He gave a piece of land to Yosiya Nadiope to settle. Nadiope later called the place Budiope, This place used to be occupied by people who belonged to the Mulawa clan. Many people from Teso migrated and settled in many parts of Busoga, particularly Bugabula.

Nadiope is not a product of the Lusoga language or culture, according to a friend of mine who died recently, Prof Opio Opelu, once a Deputy Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs at Makerere University. He challenged me to seriously research the ecological autobiography of the Nadiope Family. He was confident it would lead to Teso. It was a huge task he was asking me to undertake, which would require me to travel to Bunyoro and Teso to trace the ancestry of the family. However, I also thought it was not necessary since the family was already integral to Busoga and its political governance. It is a subject scholars could pick up for serious critical study.

Yosiya Nadiope went on to become the hereditary chief – the Gabula of Bugabula. He acquired the name Gabula and so linked himself to the original hereditary chief of Bugabula. The lineage of the true ancestral Gabula disappeared. From then on, the story goes on, the house of Nadiope became the one that could claim royalty in Bugabula. His son, William Wilberforce Nadiope, was enthroned as the Chief of Bugabula in 1930.

When Prince William Wilberforce Nadiope II inherited the throne of Bugabula, the story goes, he also coined the names Kadhumbula Gabula to his name Nadiope – names linked to Bunyoro. Sir William Kadhumbula Gabula Nadiope later became Kyabazinga of Busoga. He coined the title Isebantu, which was the title of the kings of Busoga Kingdom, which had its palace at Nnenda in Busambira in the non-hereditary county of Kigulu. He called his wife, who belonged to the Tutsi ethnicity with the name Kantusa, Inyhebantu. So, she became Inyhebantu Kantusa. To this day, a Kyabazinga carries the title Isebantu and his wife carries the title Inyhebantu.

The Kingdom Busoga and the Igaga dynasty (see below) was desecrated by the British colonialists in the late 19th century through the 1930s. The colonialists first removed the Lukiiko (parliament) from Nnenda and relocated it at Butaleja in Bunyhole, which was not part of Busoga. They placed their evolving dynasty in the hands of a militarist from Koki, Semei Kakungulu, whom they called president of Busoga. His role was to preside over the Lukiiko on behalf of the colonialists to hatch laws to serve their interests, and also to extend the power and authority of the colonialists in all the counties and/or chiefdoms of Busoga.

Around 1935, the last man who was supposed to reign at Nnenda was poisoned to death and the one who was supposed to replace him was exiled to Bugambo in Luuka where he died and was buried. Some Basoga know where his grave is located. Eventually, when Semei Kakungulu expressed his wish to retire as president, he was replaced as president by Wako Zibondo of the then non-hereditary chiefdom of Bulamogi. Subsequently, the title president was changed to Kyabazinga by agreement of the hereditary chiefs with the colonialists, and Wako Zibondo became the first Kyabazinga of colonial Busoga, with his headquarters at Bugembe near Jinja. 

Unlike the House of Nadiope, which did not use the pen to underlie its historical role as producer of rulers at the level of Kyabazinga, the House of Wako was helped a lot by the writings of Y. K. Lubogo who rose to become the treasurer of Busoga and the first black mayor of Jinja. Lubogo did not only use his office to ensure many of the Lamogi, Nkono, Nagwere and Zibondo descendants accessed funds from the Busoga treasury to study, he also used the pen to ensure that recorded history read by all is that which flowed from him, especially regarding royalty of Busoga. For example, he wrote that the Lamogi were from Bunyoro and descendants of the Abakama of the great Bunyoro-Kitara Kingdom. However, his accounts were often contradicted by the writings of colonial writers such as Cohen and Faller.

Eventually the colonialists reduced Busoga to a mere district consisting of the original hereditary chiefdoms established by Prince Byaruhanga Ndahura in the early 13th century (i.e. Bugabula, Bugweri, Busiki, Bukooli, Luuka) and the non-hereditary chiefdom of Kigulu. The colonialists abolished the hereditary chiefdom of Buzaaya and split it into two parts. One part was integrated into a new hereditary chiefdom of Butembe, which was created for people called Batembe said to have come to Busoga from the Kingdom of Buganda; and the other part was integrated in the Bugabula chiefdom. The colonialists also created the hereditary chiefdoms of Bulamogi, Bukono and Bunyhole and recognised Bunhya as one of the hereditary chiefdoms of Busoga. Therefore, the hereditary chiefdoms of Busoga were a conglomeration of chiefdoms created by Byaruhanga Ndahura and the colonialists. They were not there before Byaruhanga Ndahura and the colonialists came to the are called Busoga.

Establishment of chiefdoms and the Kingdom of Busoga

Political governance is the process of decision-making to formulate policy. Administrative governance is the system of policy implementation.

Not much is known about how the indigenous Basoga were governed before a prince of the Chwezi Kitara Kingdom extended its imperial authority over the area that came to be known as Busoga. It is thought that the original ancient Basoga were small scale cultivators who lived in small clusters of homes and practised simple forms of governance through clanism. They also hunted small animals for protein to bold their bodies.

The first-time centralised governance of Busoga took shape at around 1232 when Omukama Wamara 1 ostensibly dispatched Prince Byaruhanga Ndahura to the area with soldiers. However, a more popular historical account is that Prince Byaruhanga Ndahura travelled on his own with aim of going to Mt Elgon in the area known today as Bugisu. His soldiers are said to have belonged to the Ngobi clan.

On his way to Mt Elgon, Byaruhanga Ndahura created six county chieftainships, five of which he gave to his soldiers to rule. He gave Bugabula to Gabula, Luuka to Tabingwa, Bugweri to Menhya, Bukooli to Wakooli and Buzaaya to Muzaya. He gave Busiki to his brother-in-law called Kisiki. Curiously he kept Kigulu county to himself, Kigulu subsequently became the seat of power for Busoga Kingdom, which he created for his son, Byaruhanga Ndahura I of Busoga whom he sired with a native girl who was given to him by the locals in appreciation of having visited their area. They gave him the girl as he was descending Nnenda hill on his way from Mt Elgon.

It should be remembered that the concept of Saza was innovated by the last ruler of the Tembezi Kingdom, which preceded the Chwezi Kitara Kingdom. So, what Ndahura Byaruhanga was doing was to actualise it in Busoga, which under the King Isaza’s rule of the Tembezi Kingdom was a district.

In his An Introduction to Lusoga Orthography published by the Mpolyabigere RC – RICED Centre Ltd, Wambi Gulere (2007), however, gives another narration. He says that Kisiki was a Mwise Igaga who conquered Busiki. He includes Bukono of Nkono, Bulamogi of Zibondo, Bunhya of Luba/Nanhumba and Butembe of Ntembe among the ancient chiefdoms of Busoga.

However, I believe that Wambi Gulere’s book is a continuation in the confusion of Busoga history and governance that Y. K. Lubogo started and perpetuated through his writings. Gulere himself is linked to Bugwere. More research is needed to put the history of Busoga right. Gulere does not want to admit that Bulamogi, Bukono, Bunyha, Butembe and Bunyhole were colonialists. converted to hereditary Chiefdoms by the British

As I have already mentioned, on his way back from Mt Elgon, Prince Byaruhanga Ndahura 1 visited the spectacular Nnenda Hill in Busambira, Kigulu County. As he was coming down the Hill the Basoga locals gave him a beautiful woman, whom subsequently made pregnant. He decided to stay on at Nnenda until his new wife gave birth. When she gave birth to a baby boy, he named him Prince Wamara Ndaura. Apparently Byaruhanga Ndahura belonged to the Chwezi clan called Igaga, which had captured and penetrated the royalty of Bunyoro Kitara. He decided to stay on until his son was two years old. He then summoned all the chiefs he had erected for the counties he had established to come to Nnenda. That was in 1232 AD.

When the chiefs arrived, he told them that he had invited them to tell them that he had decided that the area over which they were ruling would now be called Busoga. He decided on the name because there was a lot of castor oil plant, which is called Mukakale in Lusoga and Kisogasoga in Lunyoro. Byaruhanga Ndaura 1 added, “From now on this area will be a kingdom and its seat of power will be Nnenda Hill at Busambira. My son will assume the names Wamara Byaruhanga Ndaura I. He will be the first king and he will be called the Isebantu of Busoga. Your chiefdoms will be hereditary and you will be hereditary chiefs. Because the king is still an infant you will be regents until the king is old enough to take full charge of the kingdom. Kigulu County is the host to the king it will neither hereditary nor have a chief. There can never be two bulls in the same Kraal. There will be a prime minister (Katukiiro) to the throne who will always come from Kigulu county. While you will be royals in your counties, the royals of Busoga will come from the Igaga clan”.

For God and My Country

• A Tell report / By Oweyegha-Afunaduula / Environmental Historian and Conservationist Centre 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.