TEL: +256 772 483949 OFFICE OF THE

+256 755 483949 CHAIRMAN

P.O BOX 383,
TORORO- UGANDA
Email: thomasnyalulu@gmail.com

PADHOLA ELDERS’ FORUM

(THE PADHOLA CULTURAL INSTITUTION)

10th September, 2019

REF: PEF/PARL/19/01

The Rt. Hon. Speaker,

The Parliament of Uganda – Kampala.

Dear Madam Speaker,

RE: PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE ON THE ISSUE OF TORORO

This is a joint letter by Padhola Elders’ Forum and the Supreme Assembly of Tieng
Adhola. The Padhola Elders’ Forum is an affiliate of The Elders’ Forum of Uganda
whose main interest is to promote peace and tranquility in Uganda through justice and
dialogue.
Our attention has been drawn to what transpired in Parliament on the 22 nd day of
August, 2019 under your stewardship on the issue of Tororo District.

We noted from the several representations variously made during the debate that there
is an erroneous belief that the division of Tororo District will be decided upon
exclusively from the outcome of the London trip.

However we would like to, through you, advise parliament that there are other crucial
factors that must be considered together with the said outcome, namely;
1. The existing legal frameworks.
2. The already set precedents in Uganda on division of districts.
3. The facts of history.
 4. The Socio-cultural realities.
5. The Infra-structural realities.
On the key question of the Constitution of Uganda, we wish to draw attention to Article
177 of the Constitution as amended in 2006, clause (2) which states; “The districts
referred to in clause (1) of this article shall be taken to have been divided into the
lower local government units which existed immediately before the coming into
force of this Constitution.”
The impact and legal imperative of this is that when the current Constitution of Uganda
(1995) came into effect, the District of Tororo had two administrative units and one
lower Local Government unit with equal status.
1. Tororo Municipality (lower Local Government unit)
2. West Budama County and Tororo County (Administrative units)
Additional, Tororo Municipality enjoys the distinct privilege as serving as the district
headquarters. Against this legal and Constitutional reality and based on established
legal precedent, if a part of this district following a demand by its people (Tororo
County) wishes to leave and become a separate district, they should be allowed to do so.

However, it would be unconstitutional and illegal that they demand to leave with
another equal part of the district which has not demanded and resolved to be separated
from the existing district.

Precedent in this instance dictates that those demanding to leave do so leaving the
reduced district with its headquarters as existed.

The attempt to justify any other mutation with reference to history during colonial times
whether 1929, 1947, or 1962 just before independence are grossly misplaced.

Any creation of a new district must as a starting point, initiate from the existing
boundaries as currently established by the 1995 Constitution and detailed in the current
Local Government Act (Cap. 243) as amended in 2008
Cc: H.E. the President of Uganda
Cc: His Royal Highness the Kwar Adhola
Cc: Deputy Speaker of Parliament
Cc: The Chief Justice of Uganda
Cc: The Rt. Hon. Prime Minister of Uganda
Cc: The Attorney General of Uganda
Cc: The Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban Development
Cc: The Minister of Local Government
Cc: The Prime Minister (Jago) Tieng Adhola
Cc: Hon. Members of Parliament of Uganda
Cc: The Resident District Commissioner - Tororo
Cc: The District Speaker, Tororo.
Cc: His Worship the Mayor, Tororo Municipal Council
 APPENDIX TO THE LETTER TO THE RT. HON. SPEAKER OF THE
PARLIAMENT OF UGANDA.
Subject Matter:
THE PARLIAMENTARY CONSIDERATION OF THE TORORO DISTRICT
ISSUE
PREAMBLE:
The demand to have Tororo County elevated to a district status started way back in the
year 2000. Since that time many considerations and activities have taken place,
involving the following:
1. Many meetings with H.E. the President
2. Many meetings of the Cabinet of Uganda
3. Visits by two Committees, one led by Hon. Crispus Kiyonga and the
Parliamentary Committee on Local Government.
4. A visit by the Minister of Local Government, that time being Hon. Kahinda
Otafiire.
5. An inquiry by the Prof. Byarugaba Commission
6. Tororo leadership holding many consultative meetings with the local
stakeholders.
As a consequence of all those activities and considerations, a district status was
awarded to Tororo County in accordance with the already set precedent of awarding
new districts and the prevailing laws. (See copies of 1. Letter by the Minister of Local
Government stating Cabinet position (Appendix A1), 2. Extract from Prof. Byarugaba
Report and Recommendations (Appendix B), 3. School Atlas which captured the
proposed district (Appendix C)). Madam Speaker, be informed that this division had
been vehemently opposed by the Jopadhola who are the aboriginal owners of Budama
County, the present day Tororo District. However, they later relented. Unfortunately
the proposed district was rejected by the very people who had demanded for it, giving
very flimsy excuse for doing so.
The parliamentary debate on 22/8/2019
This debate brought out some very important perspectives on Tororo District worth
mentioning in this attachment, namely:
1. Inadequate appreciation of the real issues.
• There was a lot of emotional sentiment on the purported boundary dispute in
Tororo. Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no boundary dispute of whatever nature in
Tororo. All the Local Government units and the administrative units at whatever level
are very well defined in accordance with the existing laws of Uganda (The Constitution
and The Local Government Act). Whoever alleges that there is a boundary dispute in
Tororo, ought to be tasked to substantiate the claim. Which Sub–County is in boundary
dispute with which one, or for that matter which Counties are in dispute over
boundaries?
• There was a lot of emphasis on availing Parliament with the report on the London
trip with a view to using it to resolve the imaginary boundary dispute. For those of us
who attended the meeting convened by H.E. the President on Tororo issue on
12/07/2017, what prompted the need to go to London was the claim that Tororo
Municipality is geographically the same size as its predecessors the Town Council and
the Town Board/Township. That there has never been land annexed from its
neighborhood to make it the size that it is today. Madam Speaker, regardless of
whether or not the Municipality got extra land from the neighborhood, its status as an
independent County from both West Budama County and Tororo County does not
change (See copy of Mr. Bwogi’s letter, Commissioner Survey, to Hon. Ekanya, MP
Tororo County then).
• The debate of the 10th Parliament appeared not to be giving due consideration to
the entire journey of the Tororo issue up to this day. Since there were already tangible
steps taken to resolve the matter within the law, Parliament needs to cautious about
following with the law while resolving the subject matter.
2. The Prudency of Considering Additional Parameters in the debate.

Madam Speaker, there are additional parameters which cannot be ignored on the issue
of Tororo if candid solutions are to be put in place.
These include the following:
a) The existing legal frameworks.
b) The already set precedents in Uganda on creation of new districts.
c) The facts of history.
d) The Socio-Cultural realities.
e) The infrastructural realities.

1. The facts of History

The Jopadhola settled in the present day Tororo over six (600) hundred years ago.
By the time the colonialists came to Tororo, the Jopadhola were already significantly
organized with appropriate governance structures and formidable fighting groups.
Therefore as the dominant ethnic group in and around the developing business centre of
Tororo, Tororo Town was ordinanced as the aboriginal town of the Jopadhola (Order of
Council, 23/05/1923), just like Jinja for the Basoga, Soroti for the Iteso, Lira for the
Langi etc.
The other historical facts that government, including the Parliament has to take
note of include:
a) The land on which the central business district of Tororo Municipality is situated
was donated by a Japadhola of Bendo Clan called Obiro. The grave of the said
Obiro is at Straburg in Bison – Maguria Parish of Tororo Municipality.
b) The land that contains the Catholic Mission and St. Peter’s College Tororo was
donated by a Jopadhola called Okeke of Bendo Clan and another one called
Ochwo Olijo of Morwa Guma Clan. The descendants of these people still
occupy the land that remained for them up to date.
c) The land occupied by Tororo Girls’ School and Manjasi High School was
donated by one Japadhola called Luben Magara of Bendo Clan.

Madam Speaker, it is really absurd to want to make Ugandans believe that the
present Tororo Municipality is one and the same thing in geographical area as the
Town Council before it, the Town Board and Township before the Town
Council. Obviously to become a Municipality there was an increase in land from
the neighborhood. For your information, Madam Speaker, between 1989 and
1992 the areas of Nyangole, Bison Maguria and Kyaminula village which were in
Rubongi Sub-county in West Budama were brought into the Municipal Council.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, this magnitude of sacrifice by the Jopadhola to build the
Municipality cannot be watered down.
Furthermore, all historical facts define the land of Padhola, also commonly
referred to as Budama as being the present day Tororo district. It was this Budama
which was a county under the colonial government which was legally divided into West
Budama and East Budama in 1938. As a matter of fact, there is no legal instrument that
changed East Budama to Tororo County. Therefore, the name Tororo County was an
illegality (See copy of extract from 434 of the East African RED BOOK, 1930-31,
Appendix A).

2. The existing legal frameworks.

a) Tororo District is one of the 39 entrenched districts of Uganda that cannot be
legislated out of Uganda without following the provision for doing that as laid
down in the Constitution of Uganda.
b) Under Article 177 of the Constitution as amended in 2006, clause (2), states
“The districts referred to in clause (1) of this article shall be taken to have been
divided into the lower local government units which existed immediately before
the coming into force of this Constitution.” The meaning of this, to us, is that
since Tororo Municipality is one such lower local government and Tororo
County was an administrative unit existing with defined boundary the
Municipality cannot be taken as part of Tororo County. The two are therefore
distinct and separate.
c) Under The local government Act (CAP.243), as amended in 2008, section 7,
(Boundaries of local council units) clause (1) states: “The boundaries of a local
government or of an administrative unit shall be those which existed
immediately before the coming into force of this Act”. This means that the
Municipality (a lower local government unit of the district) and “Tororo” County
(an administrative unit of the district) have their recognized boundaries by law
and neither of them can be embedded into the other.
Under clause (7) of this section it is stated “A district or city council may,
within its area of jurisdiction with the approval of Parliament and in
consultation with or at the request of the relevant county council or city
 division council, alter the boundary of or create a new county or a city
division.” There has never been a Tororo district council resolution to alter
the boundaries of “Tororo” County to include Tororo Municipality within its
boundaries. Therefore, to claim that Tororo Municipality is part of Tororo
County, is to us a legal absurdity, regardless of the findings in London.
The only thing the district council has done and was granted was to divide the
former “Tororo” County into two separate Counties of Tororo North and
Tororo South. In effect therefore, Tororo County no longer exists.

During the debate in Parliament on the issue of Tororo, there was an allegation
that Tororo District Council is non-functional. We wish to inform you and all the
members of Parliament that this is not true. The Council and even its committees are
fully functional and have held all the six mandatory sessions. The only problem that
exists is that the Ag. District Chairperson has overstayed beyond the mandatory period
of six months provided for under the Local Government Act.
d) It was also alleged that there is a boundary dispute in Tororo. This is not true.
All the main entities that constitute Tororo District i.e. West Budama County,
Tororo Municipality, Tororo County North and Tororo County South have well
defined undisputable boundaries. Furthermore even at lower local government
levels (sub-counties) and lower local administrative units (parishes and villages)
there are no boundary disputes throughout the district.

3. The Socio - Cultural Realities

Madam Speaker the demand for a separate district from Tororo has, right from
the beginning, been premised on ethnic sentiments. The promoters of the demand want
a tribal Teso district in Tororo. This is on record. Awarding a district to East Budama
(“Tororo County”) in fulfillment of those sentiments has a number of consequences:
a) The population of non-Iteso in Tororo North and South Counties formerly
together known as Tororo County is more than those of the Iteso. This makes the
Iteso a minority compared to other ethnic groups combined. Therefore,
rewarding a minority against the majority is setting a dangerous precedent that
can end up being emulated in other parts of the Country. For example
 Namayingo is occupied predominantly by the Samia but located in Busoga
region. The Samia have never agitated for a separate district in Busoga. The
Iteso have large populations in other parts of Uganda outside Teso land, it will
not be reasonable for them to advocate for their separate districts in such areas.
The Jopadhola are also significantly present in other districts like Buikwe,
Kayunga and Mayuge but have no interest in asking for autonomy.
b) Madam Speaker, even before a district status is granted, speaking the
Dhopadhola language is being prohibited by force despite the fact that it is the
medium of communication by over 70% in the two Counties of Tororo South
and Tororo North. Therefore, granting a district under such a situation would be
tantamount to sacrificing the Dhopadhola language speakers.
c) The cultural attachment of the Jopadhola to Tororo Municipality is too
formidable to be treated lightly. The name Tororo originated from an
adulteration of the Dhopadhola two words of Tor and Oro (Tororo) meaning
end of year mist that usually covers the Tororo rock. The rock has revered
cultural sites such as ancestral caves and rock painting for the Jopadhola and this
is why it has been included in both the cultural emblem and the anthem. The
Kingdom Palace is in the Municipality, let alone the fact that His Royal
Highness the Kwar Adhola was enthroned at King George War Memorial
Stadium at the heart of Tororo Municipality. It therefore, means that losing the
Municipality under any guise such as boundary is tantamount to conquering and
humiliating the Jopadhola and this will be resisted at all costs.

4. The Infra – Structural Realities.

As said earlier, the lands on which the central business district of Tororo, Tororo
Girls’ School, Manjasi High School, the District Farm Institute, St. Peter’s College and
many others were donations by Jopadhola families. This means the Jopadhola have had
significant contributions to the development of these infra – structures, and their
interests in them cannot be downplayed.
It is further on record that the Jopadhola own more titled properties in Tororo
Municipality than any other ethnic group (see “Report of Commission on Inquiry for
Creation of a new district from Tororo County Ref: C01/08/05”, Appendix B)
5. The Already Set Precedents
a) At the time of the promulgation of the Constitution in 1995, Uganda had only 39
districts. Presently there are over 130 districts. It follows that over 90 new
districts have been created in response to the demand of the people. None of all
these new districts has gone with the head-quarters of the mother district. Also
no new district has been forced on people who have not demanded for it. What
plausible reason is there to make Tororo exceptional?
b) The issue of Tororo was settled in conformity with the set precedent in the year
2005. After thorough investigations and consultations involving many meetings
with the President, visits by the committee of Parliament, Hon. Crispus Kiyonga
led committee and the Prof. Foster Byarugaba Commission of Inquiry appointed
by H.E. the President, Tororo County then, was granted a district status in
response to the demand by the people. In fact the proposed new district of
Mukuju has even been captured in the Atlas for Primary schools in Uganda of
Uganda (See copy attached, Appendix C). The proposed district was rejected by
the very people who had demanded for it giving flimsy reasons in total disregard
to the existing laws of Uganda and the already set precedent of creating new
districts. Therefore, if people who have demanded for a district and have been
given can reject what has been given to them, how can government expect the
Jopadhola, in all fairness to accept a district pushed down their throats? The
Jopadhola will not accept any district given to them in order to fulfill the
demands of other people.
It seems there is a hidden motive by the Iteso for their ethnic expansionism in
the East African region as evidenced by their ongoing attempt to throw out the
Jopadhola out of Tororo.

The position of the people of Tororo Municipality

Madam Speaker, as you are aware Tororo Municipal Council is a lower local
government in Tororo District. It is a body corporate with powers to sue and be sued.
It has a fully constituted governance structure with full representation in the Parliament
of Uganda. It receives funds directly from and accounts directly to the centre. The
voice of such a body cannot be ignored in the matter of Tororo. The people of Tororo
Municipality have a right to declare what they want, since they are fully empowered by
Article I of the Constitution. Serious consideration has to be given to this (Please refer
to the views of the people of Tororo Municipality as contained in the letter addressed to
Principal Private Secretary to H. E. the President the President of Uganda dated
18/07/2017, referenced the matter of Tororo District, Appendix D)
Conclusion.
Please be informed that the current Tororo District is the geographical area
referred to as Padhola also commonly called Budama. It was one of the Counties of
Bukedi District then, together with Samia, Bunyole and Bugwere. It was later legally
divided into two Counties of East Budama and West Budama and its borders are with
Bugisu to the North, Samia to the South, Kenya to the East and Bunyole and Busoga to
the West.
On consultation with the people, and the people realizing that the demand for a
separate district is premised on ethnic ideology, they have unanimously rejected the
split of Padhola and donating part of it to Teso. There is overwhelming evidence that
the demand has tribal sentiments because the Iteso from greater Teso in Uganda and
those of Kenya are deeply involved in the campaign. On many occasions they have
attended meetings called by the President to discuss the issue and sometimes have been
in Tororo district to make their sentiments and threats.
Cc: H.E. the President of Uganda
Cc: His Royal Highness the Kwar Adhola
Cc: Deputy Speaker of Parliament
Cc: The Chief Justice of Uganda
Cc: The Rt. Hon. Prime Minister of Uganda
Cc: The Attorney General of Uganda
Cc: The Minister of Lands, Housing and Urban Development
Cc: The Minister of Local Government
Cc: The Prime Minister (Jago) Tieng Adhola
Cc: Hon. Members of Parliament of Uganda
Cc: The Resident District Commissioner - Tororo
Cc: The District Speaker, Tororo.
Cc: His Worship the Mayor, Tororo Municipal Council