By 1962, after heavy and well long promulgated but well critically planed events of

what independent Uganda would be, the 1962 independence constitution of Uganda was
promulgated to justify a new independent state. Frome 1894 to 1962, the colonialists took
Uganda path of independence at a thread line of division rather than unity. Unlike other
protectorates, the issue at hand in the case of Uganda is that the state had been endowed with
various tribes with historical, ethnical and cultural differences. Preceding this period, the
tribes had entangled themselves in a regional arena with objectives of supremacy and power.
1
Of these Buganda enjoyed more powers than others.
It is for these reasons and many more that the colonialists focused more on the tribal
leaders and tribal aspects, neglected the necessary need for how the newly independent
Uganda would formulate its our path and rather developed a constitution that sorted for more
regional problems rather than solving them. 2 For the first time, the frame work of
government was to be undertaken within specific rules that attempted to observe the basic
principles of constitutionalism.
Frist thing to note is that the constitutional conferences injected a sort of foreign
governances in the parliamentary system of newly independent Uganda. The Westminster
model of governance was to be adopted by the people of Uganda and this was a question that
sort more problems than ever. Many learned men have argued that the independence
constitution was home grown due to the facts that arouse from the issue of regionalism. Its
the period of 1962 to 1966 that was left to describe of what was to become of Uganda after
the independence. 3It was a transitional period in which the independence constitution went
on trial and was found to be largely unworkable.
Like a puppy with a born, Ugandans upheld this constitution with pride of being
independent, little did they know that independence constitution left more problems rather
than solving themes, among these included, 4the question of head of state, the question of
federal and unitary relations between the Buganda kingdom and Uganda, the question of the
relationship between Buganda and Bunyonro over the lost countries, the overall problem of
governance- its mode and relations between the government and the governed and the
opportunistic tendencies on the part of personalities at the helm of government and political
power. Now with critical analysis of the 1962 independence constitution of Uganda, I take the
utmost privilege to explain how these unsolved issues of the land still existed in the new
independent state.
The first anomaly to be tackled by an independent Uganda was the British monarchy
as a head of Uganda. Like other British protectorates, Ugandans were later on to decide to
who was to become the head of state at there on free will as the constitution spelt it out,
5

1 G.W KANYEIHAMBA, CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL HISTORY OF UGANDA,

Chapter four, pg. 65.
2 Dr. HENERY ONORIA, LECTURE NOTES, CONSTITUIONAL HISTORY, pg. 51
3 G.W KANYEIHAMBA, CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL HISTORY OF UGANDA,
Chapter four, pg. 65.
4 Dr. HENERY ONORIA, LECTURE NOTES, CONSTITUIONAL HISTORY, pg. 51

There shall be a Supreme Head and Commander in Chief of Uganda who shall be
known as the president of Uganda and who is referred to in this constitution as the President.
6

For the first year of independence, with great zeal Ugandans sort that the head of
state would be a Ugandan, but questions arouse on who was to be the head state, due to the
fact of the presence of various tribes, 7the head of state would not be a commoner or a
politician. He would rather be a traditional leader. Its at this point that the Westminster model
of governance took action, in the parliament, the ruling party UPC agreed to elect Sir Edward
Mutesa, the kabaka of Uganda as the head of state. The kyabazinga then became the VicePresident of Uganda. The entity of a traditional leader and a president were intertwined in
such a way that it left the vacuum of a question of either Uganda had become a kingdom, a
monarchy at this, or a republican state.
To add to the above, the questions of federal and unitary relationship between
Buganda and Uganda were not amicably addressed. This is due to the fact that the
independence constitution vividly showed that the relation between Buganda and the central
government was purely federal unlike other tribes. Schedule one, seven and nine of the 1962
constitution jolted it clearly of the legislative list in respect of the kingdom, the financial
relations between the government of Uganda and the kabakas government and the
constitution of the kingdom of Buganda. One can argue that this constitution was basically
promulgated to create more problems to the state rather than solving them, it indirectly gave
statehood powers the kingdom of Buganda, neglected other tribes in the state and exalted the
position the kingdom in such a way that it gave pride of the kingdom to brand itself a state in
the state.
To the question of the relationship between Buganda and Bunyoro over the Kabaka
the lost countries, the issues still remained unsolved. As a result of collaboration with the
colonialist, the kingdom of Buganda had won itself the provinces of Buyaga and
Buganganyizi. For so long Bunyoro wanted back its people to the kingdom but the kingdom
of Buganda had sowed hard seeds not to return the provinces. Now the 1963 referendum put
the kingdom of Buganda at the verge of returning the provinces to Bunyoro. The tense
relations between the two kingdoms and the aspirations of the peoples of the countries would
be underpinned by the

5 G.W KANYEIHAMBA, CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL HISTORY OF UGANDA,

Chapter four, pg. 66.
6 THE CONSTITUION OF UGANDA, 1962, CHAPTER IV, article 34 (1)
7 G.W KANYEIHAMBA, CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL HISTORY OF UGANDA,
Chapter four, pg. 67.