Two Terms Of 1900 Buganda Agreement

The Kabaka unrest of 1953 is another factor responsible for political change in Buganda. Kabaka`s problems were due to disagreements between Sir Andrew Cohen and Kabaka Muteesa ll and led to the Kabaka being exiled to Britain because he was unable to verify the terms of the Buganda Treaty of 1900. The crisis gave the Lukiiko absolute authority to propose who the Kabaka ministers would be, and that is why the Kabaka should be accountable to the Lukiiko and not to the British federal government, as was the case under the Buganda Treaty. The Kabaka was deprived of its right to appoint Lukiiko clients under the Buganda agreement. However, the Kabaka riots presented him with the right to appoint his officers and the Kabaka became a constitutional monarch when his position was redefined. The agreement stipulated that the Kabaka were to exercise direct dominion over the natives of Buganda by delivering justice through Lukiiko and his officials. [6] He also consolidated the power of the head of Bakungu`s largely Protestant clientele, led by Kagwa. The British sent few officials to run the country, relying mainly on Bakungu chiefs. For decades, they were privileged because of their political skill, Christianity, friendly relations with the British, ability to collect taxes, and Entebbe`s proximity to the Ugandan capital. In the 1920s, British administrators were more confident and had less need for military or administrative support.

[10] Believing that the relationship between the protectorate government and the Buganda indigenous government was one of protected rather than indirect domination, he planned to replace the post of Buganda provincial commissioner with one resident and remove district officials from the centre, assuming that the Kabaka would be required to follow the advice of the resident and his staff. [9] However, under the 1900 Uganda Agreement, the Kabaka was only required to respond to this advice in the event of the implementation of the Lukiiko resolutions. . . .