Why Was Namirembe Agreement Called So

EidT was the bitter pill for Muteesa to swallow the solemn commitment. “I pledge to be faithful to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, whose protection Buganda enjoys, to govern well and truly his heirs and successors and to buganda according to the law, and to respect the terms of the agreements with Her Majesty and the Buganda Constitution,” he said, conforming to the Bible at the affirmation ceremony. In fact, Mutesa`s return to Uganda was outside the conference mandate. [5] kampala High Court`s conclusion that the British government was throwing itself into Article 6 “crazy” came shortly after the news of the agreement in Namirembe, but before the agreed recommendations were published – Cohen lobbied to admit it. In November, he reversed the british government`s position and accepted the return of Mutesa, which depended on the adoption and implementation of Namirembe`s recommendations. [5] [6] 2. On 1 March it was announced that Sir Keith Hancock, Director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies at the University of London, had agreed, at the invitation of Rt. Hon. Oliver Lyttelton, now Lord Chandos, and the Governor of Uganda, to visit the protectorate to consult with representatives of the Baganda and the protectorate government on various constitutional issues related to bugandas. For three months, from 24 June to 17 September, Sir Keith Hancock chaired talks first with the Constitutional Commission appointed by Buganda Lukiko, then with the committee and the governor.

The conference was held in Namirembe, near Kampala, and resulted in a comprehensive agreement. The Conference recommended, among other things, that the Kingdom of Buganda, under the Kabaka government, continue to be an integral part of the protectorate; that the management of public affairs in Buganda should be in the hands of ministers; and that kabakas, while all the traditional qualities of Kabaka should be fully protected, should in future be constitutional leaders who, through a solemn commitment, are obliged to respect the terms of the constitutional agreements and not to compromise the security and well-being of the people of Buganda and the protectorate. These approved recommendations are attached to Appendix A. 1. In recent months, two new factors have emerged in Uganda. One of them is the agreement on constitutional affairs at the conference between the Governor of Uganda and the Buganda Constitutional Commission, appointed by Lukiko and chaired by Sir Keith Hancock. The other is the verdict of the case that was brought before the Ugandan Supreme Court to consider the validity of the complaint filed last year by Her Majesty`s Government with respect to Kabaka Mutesa II (Cmd 9028). 10.

He stated: – “At this stage” (i.e. November) “a position in which the Secretary of State had announced his political choices, and Kabaka was asked to refrain from opposition to political decisions, particularly on the question of the timetable for independence, as to whether this opposition was expressed by a public statement to the Lukiko or by consultation with Lukiko before signing the commitments that had been requested of Kabaka. Kabaka`s refusal to comply with the political decisions notified to it was clearly, at this stage, a disregard for its duty, in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, to recognize and respect the supremacy of the Crown by the pro-protection government that had been recognized by the agreement.

Comments are closed.