Colonial Acholi

CHAPTER THREE
BRITISH IMPERIALISM IN ACHOLILAND 1890-1962

This chapter examines how British colonialism was rooted in Acholiland in
order to analyse its impact on the socio-economic and political life and
institutions of the area.
Introduction
Acholiland was marginal in many ways to early British colonial rule.
It was
viewed as occupied by a tribe of a quite different and inferior order and its
people (the Acholi) were perceived as naturally lazy195 and as having little to
contribute to the development of the colonial economy. According to Ronald
Atkinson Acholiland was marginal in three main ways to early colonial rule.196
First, it was a dry and sparsely populated land located far to the north and of
limited interest to those at the centre of the colonial endeavour in Buganda.
When new British Commissioner Hesketh Bell, visited the region in 1906, he
was unimpressed by northern Uganda, describing it as a country with little or
no promise of successful development in which I cannot think of a single
product that might be grownwhich will pay for the cost of carriage to the
seaboard.197
In addition, the Acholi people were considered naturally lazy and averse to
work simply because the initial Acholi response to peasant cash cropping and
195
A. D. Roberts, The Sub-Imperialism of the Baganda, in Journal of African History, 111, 3 (1962), 12 -79.
R. R. Atkinson, The Roots of Ethnicity, 4-5.
197
J. P. Barber, The Moving Frontier of British Imperialism in Northern Uganda, 31.
196
74
labour migration to the south was not enthusiastic. To British colonial

administrators in Buganda like Hesketh Bell, direct involvement in Acholiland
offered heavy expenditure without any reward. They also argued that extending
colonial administration to northern Uganda would bring into the Protectorate a
group of tribes whose organization and customs were completely different from
the Bantu Kingdoms that formed the core of Uganda.198
Thirdly, Acholi social and cultural practices, especially the wearing of minimal
clothing,
were
considered primitive
and backward.
Worse still, their
decentralized and small scale political organization made them neither an

especially feared enemy nor a valued ally.199 As Berber put it,
No tribe in Northern Uganda (Acholiland included) had an

effective central organization, which made it powerful
enough to capture the attention of the British. The tribes
were seen neither as potential threats to established
British interests nor as potential allies to share the burden
of administrative expansion.200
Marginal and inferior as they were considered, however, the Acholi were
gradually incorporated into the colonial political economy. In this study, we
contend that such stereotyping of the Acholi and ethnic manipulation that was
the hallmark of British colonial politics of divide and rule greatly laid the
foundation on which post-independence politics was developed. This will offer a
good base from which to anchor our argument that conflict in post-colonial
Acholiland can be traced to the history of the area in the colonial period. We
198
A. D. Roberts, The Sub-Imperialism of the Baganda, 70.

R.R. Atkinson, The Roots of Ethnicity, 4-5.
200
J.P. Berber, The Moving Frontier, 32.
199
75
seek to identify the major trends that shaped the regions post-colonial
experience from its colonial history.
The Period 1890-1910

In 1889, Emin Pashas administration of Egypts Equatorial Province ended
when he was persuaded to withdraw to the coast with Henry Stanleys famous
expedition which had come so far to relieve him. Emin Pasha was Governor of
Equatoria Province, then under the Khedives of Egypt. In the 1820s, Khedive
Ali, ruler of Egypt invaded present-day Sudan and took control of it as its vassal
state. This alien thrust into Sudan extended southwards into what became the
Equatorial Province (present day Southern Sudan and Northern Uganda).201
The first administrators of the Equatorial Province used the Nubians (also called
the Sudanese soldiers by the Acholi) to consolidate their imperial control over
Southern Sudan and Northern Uganda. As employees of the Egyptian
government, they helped consolidate Egypts control over Acholiland and
governed it as one of Egypts territories in order to stop the slave trade and
modern civilization.202
In the period of Khedive Ismail Pasha as ruler or the Khedive of Egypt (18631879), changes took place in the administration of the Equatorial province.
Under the influence of both the ideas and finances of Europe, Ismail initiated a
policy of eradicating slave trading. For this purpose, Europeans were employed;
201
202
J. O. Dwyer, The Acholi of Uganda: Adjustment to Imperialism, 36.

F.K. Uma, Acoli-Arabs-Nubian Relations, 42.
76
first, Samuel Baker, then Charles Gordon and, later, Emin Pasha.203 Emin
Pasha was charged with the responsibility of administering Egypts Equatorial
province between 1885 and 1889. Like his predecessor Charles Gordon, who
had been killed by the Mahdist revolters in 1885, Emin Pasha did not often visit
Acholiland in person and his administration largely relied on the continued use
of Nubian troops.204
During his tenure as the leading Turko-Egyptian administrator in the

Equatorial province, Emin Pasha had enlisted Nubians (or Sudanese) troops to
reinforce his policies in the Province.
When he was forced to abandon
Equatorial Province following the Mahdist nationalist uprising against TurkoEgyptian administrators and imperial control, these troops were left under the
command of Selim Bey. Under Selim Bey, the Sudanese soldiers (as the Acholi
referred to them) acted freely and were, most times, out of control; raping
women, raiding the Acholi for food and killing at will.205
When Uganda was declared a British protectorate in 1894, these Sudanese

soldiers, then under Salim Bey, became the askaris or guards of the British
administration. Later, the British used them defeat the resistance of King
Mwanga of Buganda in 1894 and also to conquer Bunyoro by 1896.206
203
J. H. Speke, Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the Nile, 592.

Acholiland became part of the Equatorial province of Egypt during Turko-Egyptian Administration. Nubians acted
as agents of Egyptian Khedives. In Acholiland, the Nubians (Employees of Egypt) were also referred to as Sudanese
soldiers.
205
R Oliver, Some Factors in the British Occupation of East Africa, 60.
206
F. K. Uma, Acoli-Arabs-Nubian Relations, 1-2.
204
77
Before the coming of Arabs into Acholiland, there was relative peace and
stability within Acholi because the Acholi regarded themselves, largely, as
brothers. They based their argument on the fact that all the people now living
in Acholiland came originally from the southern Sudan led by Lwo.207
In the first place, many of the royal families were related through marriage. For
instance, the mother of rwot (Chief) Camo of Paira and the grandmother of rwot
Ogwok of Padibe were daughters of rwot Bwomono of Palabek. The mother of
rwot (chief) Alinga of Atyak was also the daughter of the rwot of Palabek.208
Links were also created by members of different clans that recognized common
ancestry. For instance, the three branches of the Bobi clan which are found in
Puranga, Padibe and Pajule claim that they are related. The Agoro clan which
settled in Palaro in the 19th century migrated from Agoro in East Acholi.
In
Puranga, the Paciko clan claims common ancestry with the Paciko in Pairo.209
The inter-clan links described above helped to bring about cordial relationships
among the people of Acholi before the advent of Arabs.
The spirit of
brotherhood that had developed was abruptly destroyed by the Arab-inspired

slave trade, slave raids and accompanying wars and manipulation of one clan
against the other. It was in this way that alien Arab imperialism in Acholiland
divided the people and left them to be manipulated by later alien forces.
207
R. S. Anywar, Acoli Kiker Megi (Kampala: Eagle Press, 1954), 11.

F. K. Uma, Acoli-Arabs-Nubian Relations, 3.
209
F. K. Uma, Acoli-Arabs-Nubian Relations, 3-4.
208
78
Whereas Dwyer concurs that the Acholi were indeed left to their own devices, he
still maintains that the years (1889-1899) were years of excitement and
achievement in Acholiland.210 In support of his position, he believes that for
the first time in nearly half a century, the Acholi were able to establish their
own political traditions in the ten years, in the absence of powerful alien
intruders. By the 1870s, Arab traders in slaves and ivory had been ousted
through the efforts of Khedive Ismail Pasha and his European administrators of
the Equatorial Province, first Samuel Baker and, later, Emin Pash. When the
Mahdist Nationalist revolt ended Turko-Egyptian administration in southern
Sudan and northern Uganda (Acholiland) in 1889, Acholiland was left free of
alien rule until the British had established themselves firmly in the north of
their Ugandan Protectorate by opening a station at Gulu in Acholiland in
1910.211 Acholiland, therefore, remained peaceful and free from pillage from
1888 to 1898. The British first settled at Paraa (Murchison Falls) on the bank
of the River Nile. They did not, however, stay at this site for long and soon
established other administrative posts at Wadelai and at Guruguru in Lamogi in
Acholiland.212
Moving Frontier of British Imperialism in Acholiland

The
extension
of
British
Imperialism
into
northern
Uganda,
including
Acholiland, was a gradual exercise and was accomplished much later than in
the South.
According to J.P. Barber, the extension of British control across
210

D.A. Low, Buganda in Modern History, 104.
212
J. B. Webster & Onyango-Ku-Odongo, The Peopling of Agago, 167.
211
79
northern Uganda was a hesitant and timid piece of colonization.213 The policy
revolved around the dispute between those who were for administrative
expansion and those who favoured concentration upon the Bantu areas of the
protectorate. It was the concentrators and notably Hesketh Bell, backed up by
the British government, who dominated policy after Harry Johnstones
departure in 1901.214
British operations in northern Uganda in the 1890s, generally, were not dictated
by their interests in Acholiland that forms the largest portion of this region or
other neighbouring peoples. After the British decided to establish a protectorate
over Uganda in 1894, there were only two absolutes in the policy handed down
from the foreign office in London. The first was that the kingdom of Buganda
should be the headquarters of the administration and the second was to
establish a foothold on the Upper Nile from which to observe the movements of
the Belgians and the French. In 1882, British forces occupied Egypt as one of
their African colonies. After the British occupation, imperial struggles between
the British and French were over the Nile valley countries. This was contained
in what British administrator, Lord Salisbury, described as the Nile valley
strategy. Uganda remained the pivot of this strategy.
During the reign of Khedive Ismail Pasha in Egypt between 1863 and 1879,
French and British traders had noticeable investments in Egypt and shares in
213
J. P. Barber, The Moving Frontier of British Imperialism, 41.

Sir Harry Johnstone was a special commissioner, appointed by the British Government to place the Administration
of the Uganda Protectorate on a satisfactory permanent footing. He had served in Cameroon and as Commissioner in
British Central Africa (Malawi). He was to ensure that Uganda was effectively occupied and developed. He
arrived at Kampala on 20th September, 1899.
214
80
the Suez Canal project. Once Egypt became bankrupt and could not pay back
borrowed funds from both the British and French, politicians from these two
imperial countries decided to take over Egypt as a dual colony.215 The French
failed to implement the immediate takeover of Egypt due to parliamentary and
administrative bureaucracy.
In 1882 the British immediately took control of Egypt, to the annoyance of

French politicians. In their frustrations, the French design after 1882 was to
occupy any country through which the River Nile flowed, as a way to deter
British cotton development in Egypt. In June 1895, British Intelligence at Cairo
warned that:
Rumors have been in Cairo of the arrival of a French
expedition in the Barhr-El-Ghazel region of Sudan. There is
no reason to assume that the arrival of French parties in that
neighbourhood is impossible or unlikely.216
It was with the object of forestalling the possibility of the French taking over
northern Uganda and Southern Sudan (former Equatorial Province) that the
British government ordered Major L. Macdonald to lead an exploratory
expedition northwards from Buganda in Southern Uganda. Macdonald was
instructed to confirm British claims to northern Uganda by establishing military
and administrative posts and hoisting the British flag in the area.217
The threat to the Upper Nile came from Leopold II King of Belgium, then the
colonial force in Congo in April 1893. As the British administrator in Uganda
215
R. Robinson & J. Ghallager, Africa and the Victorians, The Official Mind of Imperialism, (London: Macmillan
Education Ltd, 1981), 321.
216
Intelligence Report: Egypt, no 38, Confidential Report, 18 June 1895, bound as Confidential Print in F.O. 78/4986.
217
J.P. Berber, The Moving Frontier of British Imperialism, 25.
81
then put it in a letter to the Queen of England; The sovereign of Congo is a

large filibustering force into the British sphere of influence and it has occupied
Lado (current West Nile region of Uganda), an important post on the Nile.218
Leopold IIs ambition was to build an extensive colonial empire for Belgium,
stretching from the Congo to Zanzibar on the East African coast and
encompassing modern northern Uganda. Therefore, even when the British
official position was not to effectively occupy northern Uganda because it was
still regarded as an area with little to offer in the way of commerce and an area
whose people had not yet become accustomed to the sojourn of white men in
their midst,219 French and Belgian threats made the British change their
attitude to the effective occupation of northern Uganda by 1906.
Up to 1898, British administration in Uganda was confined to the four

kingdoms of Buganda, Bunyoro, Toro and Ankole, the district of Busoga and to
a line of stations along the supply route from Mombasa. The great stretch of
country to the north, between the Nile and Lake Rudolph was completely
unadministered and unexplored.
Its people were left to fend for themselves.
The British attitude about Acholiland only depended on vital political and
economic interests that they felt were under threat from different colonial
powers at different times, such as the French and also in order to contain
Ethiopian elephant hunters.
218
The best account of Leopolds ambitions on the River Nile is in J. Stengers, La Primiere Tentative de Resprise du
Congo par lar Beligique; Bulletin de la Geographie, LXIII, (1959), 1-80.
219
AF No. 7 (1900) Command 671 instructions to Sadler 28/1/1902.
82
Between 1898 and 1904, northern Uganda was still largely free of British
imperial control, as compared to southern Uganda, then already effectively
occupied. Ethiopian elephant hunters exploited this vacuum to intensify their
unrestricted killing of elephants for ivory and to trade their guns with Acholi
rival chiefs (rwots). As Karugire notes,
the activities of the Ethiopian traders were so harmful that by
1914, the vast herds of elephants of North-Eastern Uganda
were virtually exhausted and this, in turn, led to the sharp
decline in the revenue the protectorate had been used to
collecting from this source (sale of ivory).
Additionally,
through the same ivory hunters the people of northern
Uganda were getting and accumulating large quantities of
arms and this worried the protectorate administration,
especially as an increasing number of breach loadersconsidered to be sophisticated weapons by the standard of
those days were finding their way into Acholiland.220
Such were the events, in addition to the French and Belgium threats discussed
earlier, which gradually changed British policy and attitude about directly
controlling northern Uganda. Thus, clearly, northern Uganda was not occupied
because it was considered economically viable to British imperial interests but
much more because of considerable threats to British safe occupation of
Southern Uganda.
This thinking later developed into British divide and rule
policy.
In July 1899, Sir Harry Johnstone went to Uganda as special Commissioner to

reorganize the protectorate. Johnstone aimed at establishing an administration
over the northern part of the Uganda Protectorate that was economic and
220
S. R. Karugire, A Political History of Uganda , 113-114.
83
efficient.221 For him, economy and efficiency meant a policy of expansion that
was contrary to the position of the Foreign office in London. Although Harry
Johnstone never visited Acholiland during his tenure, he had read with
enthusiasm the reports of British Officers sent to the area, particularly those of
Delme-Redcliffe.
He came to realize that northern Uganda was economically
productive and British colonial control of the area would be of great economic
value. The area had vast stock of elephants and, hence, ivory then unilaterally
exploited by Ethiopian ivory traders. He wanted a formal declaration that the
Uganda Protectorate extended to 5o north latitude between Lake Rudolf and the
Nile, including Acholiland. The Foreign Office would not sanction such a claim,
partly because official policy then was to concentrate in the South222.
Johnstones tenure came to an end and, likewise, his expansionist policy in the
north.
Colonel Hayes Sadler was, henceforth, sent as the new commissioner to

Uganda. The instruction given to the new Commissioner confirms our earlier
position about British colonial politics and attitude about the Acholi.
The
instructions to Hayes Sadler stated that:

in the opinion of His Majestys Government, it is not desirable
to push too quickly amongst tribes in outlying districts who
have little to offer at the present in the way of commerce and
who have not yet become accustomed to the sojourn of the
White men in their midst.223
221
F. O. C.P 7867, Johnstone-Landowne, 107/1901.

Entebbe Archives, A17/1: 25/8/1900, Johnstone to Delme-Redcliffe.
223
For details on this British stereotype/ position and politics of divisionism, see AF No, 7, Cmd 671, Instructions to
Sadler, 28/7/1902.
222
84
Sadlers policy was later described by Hesketh Bell as merely keeping open the
waterways and as little interference as possible with the wilder tribes of the
interior.224
In one of his correspondences, Sadler reported that the trade through

Gondokoro was insignificant, and that the Nile Province (largely Acholiland)
was the most backward part of the Protectorate because of its distance from
the headquarters, the difficulty of communication and the poverty and
primitive character of its people who still feel the effects of the rule of Emin
Pashas mutinous soldiers followed by the Dervishes.225
Hesketh Bell was the strongest exponent of the Foreign offices 1902 policy of
concentration or keeping the British occupation to the more economically
viable south and the strongest opponent of Harry Johnstones policy of
expansion. Bell did not consider that Acholiland itself could be productive. He
thought the soil poor, the timber sparse and the prospect for the survival of
sheep or cattle thin. This was a clear contrast to the writings of enthusiastic
missionaries a few years before. Kitching, for one, had noted that almost every
village boasts some cattle.226 To Bell, Acholiland offered heavy expenditure
without any reward. Not only did he dismiss its commercial value, but he also
strongly believed that Johnstones northern expansion had more than territorial
implications as it would bring into the protectorate a group of tribes whose
224
Entebbe Archives (E/A), 50/1906, Bell- Hesketh to Sadler, 13/9/1906.

Details in Sadlers Annual Report, 3/3/1903.
226
Correspondence from Sir Hesketh Bell to Secretary of State, Sept. 13.1906, C.O 53617.
225
85
organization and customs were completely different from that of the Bantu
Kingdom and people who formed the core of Uganda.227
That the colonial government could afford to play the reluctant colonizer was a
reflection of its attitude on the economic and political weaknesses of the
northern tribes like the Acholi. British administrators like Bell strongly held the
view that the tribes of the north (like the Acholi) presented no more than an
administrative problem that would involve the British in endless petty
squabbles while an administrative system was being imposed upon them. He
also emphasized that the natives were unwilling to submit to domination by
chiefs.
There were no powerful local authorities through which we might
transmit our directions.228
It is interesting to note how firmly Bell was
committed to the Buganda model.
His concern for what came to be called
indirect rule, not only predated the experience of Lugard in Nigeria, but it also
restricted his vision toward the possibility of administering so-called stateless
societies.
Bell concluded by making apologies for a policy which would restrict the
governments active authority to within twenty miles of the river. Bell strongly
believed that the resources of the Protectorate should not be frittered away on
inadequate efforts in outlying provinces but should be concentrated in the
more favoured localities, where the soil is excellent, the people industrious and
the country full of promise. He decided, therefore, that in the north, the
227
This kind of stereotype characterized British colonial politics of divide and rule in Uganda. Post-colonial rulers
exacerbated such politics and this laid foundation for the turbulence that has characterized Acholiland since 1962.
228
Correspondence from Sir Hesketh Bell to Secretary of State, Sept. 13.1906, C.O 53617.
86
administration should be confined to a radius of 20 miles from the banks of the

Nile river, that no responsibility should be accepted for tribes inland, that the
troops at the Nile stations should be withdrawn and that the administrative
status of the stations should be lowered from a Province to a District.229
Hesketh Bells policy of administrative concentration was clear, but even then
the north generally, Acholi in particular, could not be ignored completely by the
British. It was partly the problem of the ivory traders that caught the attention
of the British in the later years.
The policy which, since 1900, had given the ivory traders and hunters
unrestricted freedom to hunt down large populations of elephants for ivory was
severely criticized by a later Governor, Fredrick Jackson. In 1901, he wrote,
I consider as deplorable the conditions of affairs now existing
in these parts (i.e. Acholiland and adjacent areas) It cannot
be pleaded that it was unknown that such a condition existed
nor is it possible to support the assertion that the traders
were confining themselves to a war of extermination against
the elephants. Many of the traders are stirring up strife
amongst the natives and assisting one tribe against another
in order to share the loot.230
Governor Fredrick Jackson was alarmed at the lack of administrative control by
the British in Acholiland and how the Ethiopian ivory traders had exploited this
administrative vacuum to indiscriminately hunt elephants for ivory.
229
230
Entebbe Achieves, Bell to Sadler, 13/9/1906.

Entebbe Archives, Memo by Jackson Fredrick 19/1911 of 4/7/1911.
87
Additionally through the same ivory traders, the people of northern Uganda
particularly the Acholi, got and accumulated large quantities of arms which
their chiefs (rwots) used in inter-clan feuds. Consequently, this made the Acholi
a threat to even the British. As Karugire notes,
Hitherto, the British officials had reasoned that the
communities of northern Uganda, armed with a few
antiquated weapons, could be subdued as and when it
became necessary. But the increasing supplies of
sophisticated weapons made the occupation of the region
urgent since the more the occupation was delayed the more
the communities would learn the effective use of those
weapons and hence the more difficult they would be to
subdue in future.231
The colonial government may not have known the full extent of the tribal
fighting and destruction of elephant by Ethiopian hunters in the north, but
there was undeniable evidence that all was not well.
As early as 1900,
Johnstone reported that the destruction of elephants was shocking232. In

1903, T. Grant, an administrative officer, reported that European and Swahili
traders were also taking part in local Acholi tribal raids for cattle, goats, women
and food-stuff.233 In 1906, H. Rayne, a police officer, made a full report of the
unlawful activities of the Swahili in the Turkwell region and, in 1908 Lieutenant
Fishbourne wrote that the tribes raid each other all year round.
All the
country lying west of Lake Rudolf and for some distance south is continuously
swept by raiding bands of Abyssinians or Ethiopians.234 For long, what took
place in the Acholi sub-region did not attract immediate attention of the colonial
government partly because of their policy of concentrating their meager
231
S.R. Karugire, A Political History of Uganda, 114.

F.O.C.P 74005, Johnstone H. to Hardinge, 26 March 1900.
233
For details see Karamoja Records 1903.
234
M. Bartlet, The Kings African Rifles, 234.
232
88
resources on economically viable areas like Buganda and the kingdoms in the
south. The other reason for the change in policy was, as Jackson noted, the
importance of ivory as a source of trade and revenue in the period before cotton
dominated the Uganda economy.235 The colonial government then viewed the
north as a source of revenue from ivory without undertaking the responsibility
of administration. This policy was later seen as a failure because the fortunes
from the ivory went to individuals and not to the government. As James Barber
put it,
The British officials were compelled to pursue an active policy
in northern Uganda, not because they thought it or its
inhabitants had any intrinsic value in themselves, but
because of British strategic and economic interests.236
The point to emphasize here is that the policy of marginalization of the Acholi
that was employed in Uganda by the British is what partly contributed to the
current state of this region. The colonial and later post-colonial regimes did not
value Acholiland, for it was considered as a land of less economic value
compared to, for example, Buganda in the south, and very little infrastructure
developments were made in the area in the colonial period. Post colonial regimes
after 1962 have done very little to transform the life and social status of the
people there. Leaders have, instead, manipulated the Acholi in different ways
and at different times for their selfish political motives, leading to the current
turbulence.
The
Acholi
became
manipulatable,
partly
because
of
the
unfortunate outcome of their relations with aliens. The foundation of this was
235
Figures given in the Annual reports show that for 1904-1905 ivory was the largest single export item (24,331)
and in 1905-06 (24,331); the second largest to goat skins. No indication is given of the districts from which the
ivory was obtained but the reaction of local officers indicates the importance of the north.
236
J. P. Berber, The Moving Frontier of British Imperialism, 88.
89
laid by Arab activities in the region. By 1872, Arab slave traders had already
created very unstable conditions in Acholi. As Webster & Onyango-Ku-Odongo
have noted regarding the consequence of Arabs in Acholi,
In fact there was no group which regarded peaceful relations
as normal and fighting as exceptional. Generally, there was a
war of each against all. Torn apart by feuds and internal
strife, created and encouraged by the Arab traders, the Acholi
people could not stand together and face a common enemy.237
The lasting effect of this early contact with aliens contributed greatly to Acholi
response to later aliens and post-independence leaders. The social fabric of
society had been torn apart by Arabs and the British found a people not yet
congealed as a large political unit beyond clans; which were also in a state of
rivalry or feuds. In such a state, the Acholi fell easily prey to colonial and postcolonial politics of divide and rule.
1910 was a turning point in the colonial governments attitude to the north in
general. This was the year when British colonial administration was effectively
established in northern Uganda. Colonial government reports of 1910 revealed
the seriousness of tribal fighting and the failure of the Uganda government to
control the ivory trade. It also revealed the dangers to British interests both
from the Ethiopian ivory hunters and from the tribes.
As F.A. Knowles, the
Provincial Commissioner of the Northern Province wrote:

The matter (Ethiopian hunters and tribal fights) is of utmost
importance as there is little doubt that in the near future a
considerable force will be necessary to deal with these natives
and ivory hunters. The situation becomes more dangerous
237
J. B. Webster, & Onyango-Ku-Odong, The Peopling of Agago, 165.
90
every day, unless prompt measures are taken to deal with the
situation at once.238
This forced Stanley Tomkins, the acting Governor, to appoint a touring officer
for Karamoja and Turkwell, South of 3oN, to control ivory traders and enter
relations with the northern tribes, in an endeavour to control the tribes239.
There were other important developments in the north in 1910. In July, the
District Commissioner (D.C) Nimule in Acholiland reported that large quantities
of firearms were being smuggled by ivory traders in from Ethiopia via
Karamoja.240 He estimated that each year about Rs. 250,000 worth of ivory was
being taken into Ethiopia. The firearms that came in return were used both in
the destruction of elephants and in tribal raiding. I found he reported, that
the whole country was in an extremely lawless state, raiding, looting and killing
among the tribes being a very ordinary occurrence.241
Another report from Nimule stated: During one tour in the Central Acholi
unadministered area,
I personally saw 500 firearms . . . a large number of which
being Grass rifles Relying on their rifles, the Acholi war
parties numbering sometimes 2000-3000 strong have now
created a reign of terror in the country to the east.242
These arms smuggled into the Acholi sub-region were exchanged for ivory and
foodstuff by the Ethiopians. In a divide and rule tactic, these traders would arm
one Acholi leader (rwot) against the other, as a way to weaken them and render
238
Entebbe Archives, Doc. 106/1910, Provincial Commissioner to Governor, 27/3/1911.

Entebbe Archives, 19/1911 Tomkins- S of S 13/3/1911 and Jackson-S of S, 4.7/1911.
240
Memo by District Commissioner, Nimule, 71/1910, C/S/14.7. 1910, Entebbe Archives.
241
Tanners Report, dated 22/12/1910, Entebbe Archives (71/1Q10).
242
Report of the District Commissioner, Nimule No E/A, 106/1910, D. C, Nimule to Provincial Commissioner
Hoima, dated 5/2/1911.
239
91
them manipulatable. Once the Acholi were weakened, Ethiopian ivory traders
then freely hunted down large numbers of elephants without fear of the Acholi.
What the reports of 1910 and 1911 revealed was, not only the seriousness of
the tribal fighting, lawlessness and the failure of the British colonial government
to control the ivory trade, but also the dangers to British interests both from the
Ethiopians and from the tribes. Although still divided in their organization, the
tribes could, with their firearms, present a formidable danger to any future
administration. While there was no tribal cohesion of any sort among the Acholi
and the other people of northern Uganda, it can be said with equal truth that
the presence of these undesirable foreigners created a new and unhealthy
atmosphere. Before British colonial rule was firmly established, there were tribal
wars and wars among clans of the Acholi tribe. Such wars were, however, not so
devastating as those which occurred after the foreigners arrived in the area and
those in the post-colonial period.
As is evident from the above, British colonialism in Uganda did not value the
interest of the local people.
Acholiland only became an area of importance
much later when British economic interests were under threat from Ethiopians,
the French and Belgians.
The first signs of a break in the old policy came in Lango district. Government
stations had been established among the Lango at Bululu (1907) and Ibuja (or
92
Kibuji) in 1909/1910.243 In 1910, J.C. Boyle, then acting Governor, reported

that information from District officers showed that the description of the North
by Bell as unsuitable for economic development was incorrect.244
In November 1911, Fredrick Jackson, who was not content to leave the north to
military control, extended civil administration eastwards from the Nile to
embrace a block of territory bounded by the river Nile, the 4oNorth and 33o east.
243
I. Kenneth, British Administration in Lango District, 1909-1935, in I. Kenneth, The Making of Modern
Uganda, (London: Allen and Unwin,1958)
244
Letter from Boyle J. C. to Crewe, 4/1/1910, E/A, 50/1006.)
93
Map showing Districts
Source: A New Macmillan Social Studies Atlas, 1998.
Jacksons extension of administration covered a territorial block and not only a

tribal group, although it so happened that the Acholi occupied most of the
block. By this measure, the Gulu area of Acholiland was brought under effective
British control. The remainder of the Acholi was brought under civil
94
administration in 1913 when Chua district, with its headquarters at Kitgum,

was extended eastwards to the 34o E.245
British Colonialism and Transformations in Acholiland: 1911-1962

By 1902, the British official position about Acholiland had largely changed.
Acholiland was, henceforth, recognized as one of the three districts in the Nile
Province.246 Even then, it was not until late 1910 that the British established
their first administrative center in Acholiland at Gulu.
The period 1910-1920

The first major concern of British administrators in Acholiland was the question
of firearms, inter-tribal conflicts and general insecurity in the area. The spread
of firearms in Acholiland started in the 1870s during the time of Khedive Ismail
Pashas brief administration of the Equatorial province. After the successful
Mahdist nationalists revolt in Sudan against Turko-Egyptian rule, Nubian
soldiers who had been used by the Turko Egyptians were left on their own. For
survival, most of them began to exchange their firearms with different Acholi
rwots (Chiefs). After their final withdrawal from Equatorial Province in 1888,
fire arms into Acholi came from Ethiopian ivory traders.
As Karugire notes, through the ivory traders from Ethiopia, the peoples of
northern Uganda were getting and accumulating large quantities of arms and
this worried the protectorate administration.247 Through the activities of these
245
E/A 2364, Statement to Provincial Commissioner, 19/4/1913.

Official Gazette (Mombasa), June 1, 1902, 200 and August 1902, 256.
247
S. R. Karugire, A Political History of Uganda, 113.
246
95
early traders, Acholi district remained one of the most heavily armed in the
protectorate.248 In the 19th century and into the early twentieth century, trade in
guns continued between the Acholi and the Alur in the North with Kabarega
King of Bunyoro in the South of Lake Kyoga. As British colonial administrator
Lord Owen noted, the Acholi and the Alur to the north, provided Omukama
(King) Kabarega of Bunyoro with ivory in exchange for guns, and Kabarega was
able to sell the ivory to the Arabs at a large profit.249
The first political and military officer in Acholiland (Tufnell) had the dual task of
aiding the British military forces and laying the foundation for future civil
administration. He had to find porters and food for the military, to make roads,
and to persuade outlying tribal groups to concentrate near the roads or military
posts so that they could be controlled. He also offered protection against their
traditional enemies.250 Tufnell, however, met all the problems foreseen by
Hesketh Bell.
This included the problem of weak chiefs and tribes with no
central organization so that to persuade one village to accept British control

peacefully was no guarantee that the next village would not offer resistance. As
Tufnell himself contrasted his situation with that in the remainder of the
Protectorate, These tribes, he wrote, are not like tribes previously dealt with.
In every other part of the Protectorate, it had been found possible to enlarge the
sphere of administered area by peaceful methods.251
248
R.R. Atkinson, The Roots of Ethnicity, 5.

Owen to Colville, March 29, 1894. F.O. 6557/3.
250
251
Entebbe Archives, 2364, Tufnell (memo), dated 16/1/1912.
249
96
In any case, due to the period of Nubian and Ethiopian incursion into the region
and the spread of arms, almost every tribe was armed and hostile to the other
and, later, to the British. As Berber (1965) notes, to deal with fierce and often
heavily armed northern tribes, Tufnell believed that military force was
necessary. Once started, there was no end to the responsibilities, for a tribal
group brought under control had to be protected from its neighbours. The only
efficient way to do this was to control the neighbours, and so on until the
British dominated all.252
The above situation should not be used to justify the stereotypical position that
the Acholi are naturally warlike people but largely portrays the unfortunate
results of Acholi interaction with early intruders into their area.
The overall
consequence was that Acholi socio-political fabric was greatly weakened by infights among the different clans and between the Acholi and other tribes in the
north that it was impossible for the Acholi to put up uniform responses to
British colonialists. Secondly, this situation of lawlessness and inter-tribal wars
was not confined to the Acholi only but held true of the northern tribes in
general. As Berber notes, the civil administrators who followed Tufnell into the
Acholi district and parts of northern Uganda encountered similar problems.
These problems were not confined to the Acholi.253
Dwyer emphasizes that the major task of the officers in the Nile stations
between 1908 and 1910 was the registration of guns, with a view to disarming
252
Acholi perception of aliens was, likewise, affected by the effects and activities of early intruders like Nubians and
Ethiopians in their area. This partly explains their response to the British later, and other peoples they considered
aliens, (for instance the NRA from the south) in their midst.
253
97
the Acholi.254
British administrators had to ensure that law and order were
maintained and that the petty inter-tribal raids and squabbles of the past were
eliminated. The first concern was the level of Acholi armaments.
As J. R
Postlethwaite noted in his book I look Back, The district officers who were
charged with the responsibility of opening up the Acholi district saw
disarmament of the area as their first and most important task.255
In August-September 1911, a policy of enforcing the firearms ordinance was

advanced by the Provincial commissioners of the Nile Province. After signing the
Brussels Arms Regulation Treaty of 1890, the British came up with the
Firearms Ordinance (1900) to implement the terms of the treaty.
This
ordinance permitted British colonial administrators to disarm the Acholi to an

acceptable level.256
Tufnell pleaded that this ordinance should be put into
force against the portion of Acholi then under British administration.
The
seriousness of the process of disarmament illustrates how Acholiland was

insecure due to foreign infiltration.
When the colonial administration began registering guns and disarming the
Acholi, the chiefs of Gondokoro and Gulu possessed about 1500 rifle257. The
1913 report noted that, in the month of March alone, more than 1400 rifles
were collected. Some Acholi leaders resisted this exercise, especially when it
was poorly coordinated.
254
J. Dwyer, The Acholi of Uganda: Adjustment to Imperialism, 104.

J. R. P Postlethwaite, I Look Back, 51-52.
256
A. B. Adimola, The Lamogi Rebellion, 166-177.
257
Native Report, E/A, 1910 Security report-Northern Garrison, 1910, Entebbe Archives, 110.
255
98
The most extensive Acholi resistance occurred in Lamogi in 1911-1912 in

opposition to the Government policy of weapon confiscation. In a study of
the Lamogi rebellion, A.B Adimola noted two main causes of the revolt. The
first, which Adimola deemed the most important, was the British demand
that all firearms be registered in accordance with the Brussels Treaty of
1890. This treaty of 1890 was a formal agreement between Britain and
German to restrict the flow of firearms into parts of Africa.
British and
German Trading company agents in Africa, especially East Africa, were

astounded at the number of firearms they encountered in their travels in the
region. The Brussels Treaty of 1890 was meant to bring some control to the
situation.258
The second, a factor of minor importance, was the forced recruitment of

porters and labourers for the roads and rest camps.259 The disarmament of the
Acholi,
and
especially
the
Lamogi,
had
serious
social
and
military
consequences. Firstly, individual Acholi rwots (chiefs) like Awich of Payira260

tried then to use the colonial army and British power for their own purpose.
They denounced their enemies to the colonial administration and gave the
military cause for punitive measures. They used the foreign military power to
settle their own accounts. Those chiefs who acquiesced to the new political
realities helped to exacerbate division and manipulative politics that came to
characterize British colonial rule in Uganda. After the Lamogi rebellion, only
258
J.O. Dwyer, The Acholi of Uganda: Adjustment to Imperialism, 146.

A.B. Adimola, The Lamogi Rebellion, 1911- 1912, 166-177.
260
For more on Rwot Arucha and his unsettled Acholiland, read his biography by Reuben Anywar; an Acholi
ethnographer and Historian.
259
99
those chiefs appointed by the colonial administration continued to have access

to rifles.261
This epitomizes British politics of manipulation and divisionism in Acholiland.

Chiefs who retained firearms also maintained a monopoly of force, using it for
self-aggrandizement and as an instrument of vengeance against old and new
rivals. A Divisional chief explained: you see we must rule by fear.262 Girling
observes that Government became little more than police.263 This illustrates
how the major trends that have shaped the development and contributed to
Acholilands turbulent post colonial experience can be traced back to its history
in the colonial period. By weakening the Acholi political system of rwotship, the
British laid the foundation for politics of manipulation that post colonial leaders
exacerbated.
From the beginning, the colonial administration in Acholiland also failed to

create a public space characterized by, at least, the fiction of functionality and
neutrality. On the contrary, the colonial state and its representatives in
Acholiland appeared to profit from a policy of eating and full-belly264 that
served their own interests, but not those of the majority.
Worse still, by disarming the southern Acholi communities of both registered

and unregistered firearms in 1912, the Northern Patrol Officers created a
serious imbalance in Acholiland.
While those in the south were virtually
261
H. Behrend, Is Alice Lakwena a Witch? 17.

F. K. Girling, The Acholi of Uganda, 198.
263
264
J. F. Bayart, The State in Africa: The Politics of the Belly, (London: New York, Longman, 1989), 16.
262
100
disarmed, Acholi in the north remained with both registered and unregistered
guns.265 The southern Acholi became easy victims of raids by the north. Todate,
insurgency
movements
against
established
governments
remain
pronounced in northern Acholiland than in the south. Districts like Kitgum and
Pader in north Acholi have been the major centers of hostilities to the National
Resistance Movement government since 1986.266
Moreover, this discriminatory process of disarming increased Acholi suspicion

about foreigners and government agents in this area. Such memory and history
partly explain why the National Resistance Army instruction in 1986 that Acholi
should surrender all guns in their possession was viewed with suspicion. Many
Acholi ex-soldiers decided to join the insurgent group in the bush for fear of
further betrayal.
Against the chiefs (rwot) installed by the colonial administration after the
Lamogi rebellion in 1912 and who lacked local legitimacy, the Acholi elected
their own traditional representatives who they called rwod or Jagi Kwer, chief
of the hoe. Like the colonial warrant chiefs, they also maintained an
enforcement staff of clerks, messengers and policemen who headed work groups
to support each others labour in the fields and punished those who did not
fulfill their obligations.267 This illustrates how British colonial politics brought
confusion that weakened the Acholi political system. In the post-colonial era,
265

This view is held by most military and government officials posted to Northern Uganda. See interview with major
Kazini, retired Army Chief on 5th March 2007, interview with current RDC Gulu, Walter Ochora 10th March 2007.
Chairman Gulu, Hon. Mao Robert, feels that this explanation is limited in scope.
267
266
101
such division and weakening of the Acholi local political structures continued
under Native Ordinances.
To-date, the Acholi cannot easily solve their local
grievances using local elders or traditional offices. Issues that have contributed
to turbulence in these areas partly relate to their weak political base.
The suppression of the Lamogi rebellion in the early part of 1912 did not signal
the final pacification of the Acholi people but rather the beginning of effective
administration of their district by the British. After the rebellion, the British
committed themselves to full administration of the area. This was only possible
after the British deployed more administrative staff in the area in the early
1920s.
Transformation of Acholi political structures (1912-1950).

The Uganda protectorate had been built upon the alliance between the British
and the Kingdom of Buganda. As the protectorate had expanded, so the
Buganda system of government had been spread both by the British and the
Baganda agents in what Andrew Roberts called Buganda sub-imperialism.268
From the outset, the British were convinced that the Kiganda model of local
government would be the most viable and probably the cheapest also and that,
therefore, this should be exported into all parts of the protectorate.269 The
Buganda system of Lukiiko (chiefs council) and civil service chiefs at county,
268
269
A. D. Roberts, The Sub-imperialism of the Baganda, 435-450.

102
sub-county and parish levels offered a uniform system for the whole
protectorate, Acholiland included.
The Buganda system was a completely new political structure for the stateless
societies of the North. Early European anthropologists,270 just like the British
administrators later, failed to appreciate that the so-called pre-colonial
stateless states like Acholi had a system of government that gave meaning to
the collective preservation of law and order, administration and the protection of
human rights among their chieftaincies. Non-Bantu speaking people like the
Acholi were defined in terms of what political institutions they lacked rather
than in terms of how they organized their political life.
The Natives, wrote
Hesketh Bell (in reference to the Acholi),

unlike those of Uganda (Buganda) and Unyoro (Bunyoro), are
apparently unwilling to submit to domination by chiefs. There
are no powerful local authorities through which we might
transmit our directions and every group of families seems to
live independently and to be more or less at variance with
their neighbours.271
This mischaracterization of Acholi communities continued even in the 1930s
and 1950s. This became the cornerstone of political changes carried out by the
British on Acholi political structure.
Postlethwaite, the pioneer colonial administrator of Acholiland, recalls the effort

to include East Acholi into the Protectorate. I became so discouraged by the
absence of any real chiefs with definite, permanent tribal authority that I found
270
271
For more on this read Lucy Mair, Primitive Government, (Baltimore: Penguin, 1962).
103
my mind turning for salvation to the Old Buganda Agent Policy of Eastern
Uganda, he wrote.272 This illustrates the frustrations of British administrators
in their political dealings with the Acholi, compared to the kingdom areas with
clear political structures like the office of Kings. In the colonial and also post
colonial period, Acholiland was regarded as a home for war like and primitive
people.
Early explorers like Speke and Grant also described Acholi as a primitive people
when these two explorers crossed the Nile River and entered Acholiland.
Moorehead proposes that the tribes grew more primitive; they were back in a
region of naked, painted men who carried bows and arrow, and who knew
nothing of the arts and crafts of Buganda.273 The negative characterization of
the Acholi by the British formed the basis of their policy of divide and rule
where the Acholi and other West Nile tribes were declared labour supplies for
the South and for the army and police. The colonial administration effected this
in Uganda, especially in southern Uganda, by inculcating in them a sense of
racial superiority partly through religion and education at the expense of the
Acholi and northerners in general who were regarded as, warlike and primitive
people.
After independence in most African states, as Amii Omara-Otunnu notes, in

most fields, power was transferred to Africans who had not been in a position to
accrue a record of comparable achievements which would command the respect
272
J. R. P. Postlethwaite, I Look Back , 56.

A. Moorehead, The White Nile (London: H. Hamilton, 1960), 68.
273
104
of across-section of the population.274 Almost all post-colonial leaders in postindependent Uganda fall into this category. Obote, a Langi from northern
Uganda, who ruled Uganda between 1962 and 1971 and 1981 and 1985, did
not have a track record in Ugandas pre-independence history that would have
swayed the entire population to support him as president. To rule, he resorted
to manipulation of the high Acholi population in the post-independence army to
overthrow the 1962 government led by Kabaka (king) Mutesa II, a Muganda. He
used the Buganda factor to rally support from the north, North East, West Nile
and Bunyoro until he was overthrown by Idi Amin, from West Nile. Amin also
exploited the hatred of the Baganda towards Obote and his Kakwa-Lugbaradominated army to rule till 1979.
In the same way, to come to power in 1986, Museveni and his National
Resistance Army exploited Bugandas hatred for Obote and his Acholidominated army to fight a five-year bush war in Luwero in Buganda against
Obotes second regime. After victory in 1986, the Uganda National Liberation
Army Acholi soldiers launched war on the NRA of Museveni partly to regain
power and also because of the NRA record of revenge against all Acholi for the
mistakes of the Acholi UNLA soldiers. This shows how post-colonial leaders in
Uganda carried on with divide and rule politics of the British. The 20-year
conflict in Acholiland partly draws from this negative history. The Africans who
succeeded to positions of authority after independence failed to narrow the
divide. As a result of the stereotype and politics of marginalisation, British
274
A. Omara-Otunnu, Politics and the Military in Uganda, 1890-1985, 8.
105
administrators started institutional transformation in Acholiland without due

regard for consequences on future Acholi political and social life.
As British authority became more firmly established, chiefs who were seen as
unco-operative or incompetent were deposed or replaced by more compliant
men known as warrant chiefs. Acholi chiefs who collaborated with the British
and those appointed by them became an integral part of the new system of alien
rule.
To confirm the above, Bere R.M, the administrative successor to Postlethwaite in

Acholiland, notes that the British administration was influential in the election
of chiefs who were willing to co-operate with the colonial administration.
Consequently, the tendency was for the proportion of government nominees to
increase at the cost of patrilineal clan chiefs. Many of the traditional chiefs
were dismissed, retrenched or retired, and others were transferred to fill
vacancies caused by these removals. New chiefs were appointed irrespective of
clan or family he writes.275
For instance, new chiefs like rwot Okello-Mwaka were imposed on the Puranga.
Rwot Aliker of Payira was given authority over the Labongo clans. In addition,
Rwot Atyak was deposed in 1927 because he failed to carry out government
orders and was replaced by one Atoyo Jakanya from Patiko.276
275
276
R. M. Bere, Land and Chieftainship Among the Acholi, Uganda Journal, 19, 1 (1955), 49-56.
106
Dwyer points out that several local Acholi leaders, as well as ordinary people,
resisted what they regarded as the disruption of their indigenous modes of
political representation.277
For example, the Labongo clans resisted Rwot Eliya
Aliker. Reuben S. Anywar, in his work Acoli Ki Ker Megi, observes that the
Labongo clan saw the imposition on them of Rwot Eliya Aliker from Payira as
Payira paramountcy and resented it.278
Aliker also made demands upon the
Labongo to provide labour for the building of roads before he was able to win
their confidence. Apart from seeing him as a foreigner, the Labongo people also
hated
being
ruled
by
force.279
Together
with
the
European
District
Commissioner of Acholi, M. Wright, they ordered the confiscation of Labongo

cattle.
A British military officer, Wegstaff, with Payira auxiliaries, attacked,
killed and confiscated Labongo cattle.280 In this way, British colonial politics
was very instrumental in weakening the Acholi political system and laying
ground for the later political events, including conflicts that have bedeviled
Acholiland.
Administrative re-arrangements were resisted elsewhere, too, by the Alero who

opposed amalgamation with Koic and others, like those eastern Acholi of Paimol
area who refused to accept the chiefs appointed over them.
The resulting
Paimol rising of 1918 had to be put down strongly and the leaders died before
a firing squad.281
The British had deposed Lakidi, the chief of Paimol, on
grounds that he was unjust and dishonest. As his replacement, the British had
277

279
280
281
More on this is detailed in an unpublished paper by Okello James and John Orr Dwyer- The Paimol rising of
1918, (1969, Unpublished).
278
107
chosen Amet-chief of Lira Amiel, about twenty miles south of Paimol. Amet was
a proven leader but, unfortunately, had suffered from leprosy and had lost some
of his fingers and toes.282 Besides the issue of leprosy, this resistance was
evidence that the people of that area had defied British imposition of Paimol
paramountcy over them. Such British actions did not only contribute to loss of
lives and property, but they also increased the enmity between the Paimol and
the Acholi of Alero. British colonial administrators exploited such differences to
consolidate their rule over the Acholi.
In other parts of Acholi, those chiefs who allied with the British were rebuked,
derided and threatened with death or even killed by the local people. In
Puranga, warrant chief-Okello Mwaka, who was deemed despotic and
untraditional, was assassinated. For colonialism to consolidate unchallenged
supremacy in the area, the alleged assassins of Okello Mwaka were executed in
Gulu by District Commissioner J. Postlethwaite. In his book, I look Back, J.
Postlethwaite wrote: Our warrant chief (Okello Mwaka) became very unpopular
and was murdered by his enemies. He continued, I tried these murderers,
sentencing four to a long term of imprisonment and four to death; sentencing
duly confirmed and carried out in Gulu one early morning.283 Such measures
and punishment not only scared those opposed to warrant chiefs, but also
deepened division in Acholiland. Chiefs like Olia of Atyak, who had turned to
collaboration with the British, happily supported the British action and
remarked, That is the best show youve put up since you have been here. That
282
Adimola Andrew in an interview with the author at Gulu Town, February 15, 2007. A Leper was and is still
regarded as a social misfit or a curse among the Acholi.
283
J. R. P. Postlethwaite, I Look Back, 64.
108
has taught all the Acholi to be government men, and when can we have
another?284
The above action fits within the guiding principle of British divide and rule as
summarized by the Provincial Commissioner of Northern Province in 1917 that
if the villagers are going to resist the authority of the chiefs, every action
must be taken and a good lesson given so that others will not follow suit.285
The foregoing analysis of the situation in Acholiland during the early years of
British colonialism shows that attempts to establish paramountcy had been
bedeviled with tension, wars and death and political authority in the district of
Acholi was restructured.
The British were, in fact, asking the chiefs to
undertake administrative and executive functions for which there was no

precedent in their tribal organizations.
Some British administrators even
became so exasperated that they took unto themselves duties which were
normally the responsibility of the chiefs. In 1912, Postlethwaite advocated that,
because of the inefficiency and illiteracy of the chiefs, the only successful
method of tax collection among the Acholi was direct collection by District
officers (DOs).286
The climax of this process was the setting up of Acholi
administrative courts, with chiefs appointed by the same colonial authority to

preside over cases instead of the old rwots and elders. As Sverker Finnstrm
notes, In practice as Acholi individuals were assigned to run the courts, some
284
J. R. P. Postlethwaite, I Look Back, 64.

E.S.A, S.M.P 4513, Correspondence from Eden to D.C., Chua, Jan. 19, 1917.
286
J.P. Barber, The Moving Frontier, 37.
285
109
came to incorporate imperial attitudes which were further disseminated and

imposed on the subjects under colonial administration.287
Around 1950, the anthropologist F. K. Girling attended one of these courts,

watching how it meted out beatings, fines and imprisonments. You see, we
must rule by fear, its divisional chief attested to the anthropologist. As the chief
continued to justify his work, his word echoed the colonial image of Africans in
general:
The people (Acholi) are lazy; they do not realize what good
things the government is doing for them. How can we make
Acholi progress unless we grow cotton, pay our taxes and dig
latrines as the government wants us to do.288
By a studied refusal to show much comprehension or any respect for the
political traditions of the people they were protecting, the British were
responsible for the inevitable decay of those traditions. This shows how far the
colonial administration had promoted polarization among the Acholi. The
changes they initiated produced winners as well as losers and were met with
responses ranging from overt resistance, always scattered and localized; and
almost always brutally suppressed, to active collaboration. The chiefs who
acquiesced to the new political realities were able therein to maintain influential
positions. This shows that the Acholi too were attempting to manipulate the
colonial situation to maintain influential positions and advantages.
287
288
F. Sverker, Living With Bad Surrounding, 68.

M. Mamdani, Politics and Class Formation in Uganda, 159. See also F. K. Girling, The Acholi of Uganda, 198.
110
The Acholi case reinforces the argument that just as ethnic codification was a
primary means through which the colonial power of indirect rule tried to keep
its control, so ethnic belonging was to become one of the main ways of
protesting against the very same control. In other words the colonial politics of
ethnification was also an avenue of anti-colonialism.289
The early British administrators of Acholiland clearly measured progress by

European standards. According to them, there had to be a recognizable chain
of command which passed from the European officers through the chiefs to the
people. The people, as beneficiaries of British programs of protection, roads
and station-building, and contact with the outside world would have to pay
through respect and, later, taxes.
The British were also not wise enough not to restrict their attention to the
recognized royalty (in the sense of hereditary hierarchy) of Acholiland, but to
seek help from enterprising and politically astute Acholi of non royal
background. The colonial conquest appropriated colonized societies and
perhaps, more importantly, the past of these societies. In Acholiland, the result
of this was the promotion of division and politics of intrigue. It also largely
contributed to Acholi negative memory about foreign rule. In the post-colonial
period, the Acholi have struggled to survive in the politics of manipulation,
ethnic stereotyping by the different regimes.
The current turbulence in this
area partly draws from this colonial experience.
289
M. Mamdani, Politics and Class Formation in Uganda, 223. See also J. Okuku, Ethnicity, State Power and the
Democratization Process in Uganda, 11.
111
As shown above, the Acholi became victims of, but also agents in, the formation
of Uganda and its ethnic districts. The Acholi, organized without sultans or
kings of any consequence, as Speke (1863:575) claimed, came to suffer under
the racist imperial authority they had to obey.290
Other agents of change in Acholiland

The impact of the second formidable force of change upon Acholiland was of a
different sort.
This was the force and role of the Christian mission. The
representatives of the Christian churches did not make momentous decisions

which disturbed the nature of politics in the country, but on a local level, their
influence upon individuals was perhaps greater than that of the new
government in Acholiland.
Missionaries promoted a tribal consciousness in Acholiland and neighbouring

areas primarily by developing written vernacular languages and producing
written accounts of local (or tribal) histories and customs291. Both Protestant
and Catholic Missions played these roles in Acholiland, but the most active were
the remarkable Crazzolara and his fellow Verona Fathers. By a process of
selection, emphasis, and distortions, Girling wrote, they will write histories
which fit the needs of the present social order.
290
292
J. H. Speke, Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the Nile, 376.

R. R. Atkinson, The Roots of Ethnicity, 7.
292
291
112
Together, missionaries helped create a powerful new idiom and new avenues for
the expression of a consciously identified and clearly bounded ethnic (tribal)
identity. Comboni missionary collection on the Old Acholi or Acoli Macon
history and cultures became a vital tool used to revive Acholi identity and ethnic
consciousness. By the end of the 1960s, Allen notes that this booklet on The
Old Acholi had been printed in an amazing, 45,000 copies.293
Moreover, missionaries also produced locally-educated elite who further

developed and articulated this identity and propagated it to a much wider
audience than the missionaries alone could ever have done. The point being
emphasized here is that missionary activity, assisted by the colonial system,
was crucial in the creation of new or new kinds of ethnic identity in colonial
Uganda.
Ethnic and religious boundary drawing went hand in hand in the
colonial period. In the later years, missionary competition created new divisions
between Catholicism and Anglican Protestantism, although in Acholiland,
Catholicism took the dominant position.294 This division was further widened
by the different regimes in the post-colonial period.
Manipulation of such
differences has contributed in one way or the other to the rise of different rebel
movements along religious backgrounds.
Meanwhile, to articulate their various interests in the colonial discourse, the

colonial subjects were dependent on their ability to read, write and speak
293
Most collections on Acholi traditions made in the early 1970s were the product of missionaries or Acholi trained
by them. Most extensive works on this has bean collections by J. P. Crazzolara, The Lwoo: Part II and the Lwoo:
Part II, (all by Verona: Museum Combonianum).
294
In the 1991 national census, 70 percent of the population in Acholiland listed themselves as Catholic, 25 percent as
protestants and only 0.5 percent as Muslims.
113
English. Education, which in northern Uganda was for many years monopolized
by the missionaries, provided them with this.295 Education was however,
double-edged.
As Mudoola observes, colonial education domesticated its
subjects, at least in part.296 The protectorate government did not get involved in
the provision of education in this region until later, while the first schools in the
south had been operational since 1901. As Karugire rightly notes, the excuse
for letting this province lag behind in the extension of social services was always
the same; its stage of development was not yet of the order to make full use of
such facilities.297 Ordinary people in Acholiland took critical notice of this
process of domestication.
When missionaries spread education, the few Africans who attained it had to
adopt European Christian values as well at the expense of traditional African
values. In such a case the graduates of this early education were domesticated
to support missionaries and later colonialists in their diverse activities.
In
addition, as Karugire further explains, the introduction of western Education

and values also effectively disenfranchised those, who for one reason or another,
did not get that Education so that the uneducated populace-something in the
region of 80% or so of the population were largely spectators rather than
active participants in the events leading to the granting of independence.298
Education also created a wedge in the political structure, especially in
identification of chiefs. Chiefs who were acknowledged or even put into office by
295
J. Middleton, Lugbara Religion: Ritual and Authority among an East African People, (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1960), 3.
296
D. Mudoola, Religion, Ethnicity and Politics in Uganda, 75.
297
298
114
the colonial administration obtained new denominations in popular talk.

Educated chiefs became chiefs of the pen (rwodi kalam) which effectively
differentiated them from those leaders who were ritually anointed with oil made
from the shea-butter tree (rwodi moo).
The point being made here is that
British colonialism brought about polarization in Acholi political structure. This

was the basis for internal division as the people began to regard new educated
leaders as stooges of the British up to undermine the local chiefs. The inheritors
of the colonial state and the politics played thereafter is what possibly made it
worse.
British colonial practices were also powerful instruments in the making of more
rigid ethnic boundaries in Uganda and elsewhere in Africa.299 The lines drawn
on
colonial
maps
and
images
in
peoples
heads
were
increasingly
operationalized, reinforced and reified. On the basis of perceived common

origins, political organization and language, the Acholi were a designated tribe,
unique from other tribes and, as such, was administered as a discrete tribal
unit.300
In this way, British politics at that time became strictly limited and
exclusively tribal. Consequently, at the local level, individuals and social and,
later, political groups among the Acholi began to compete for power and
influence within the context of their tribe. The Acholi as a collective entity also
competed with other tribes for scarce social and economic investments and
opportunities. It is this urge that the people in power, especially in the postcolonial period, exploited and manipulated with respect to ethnic groups, like
299
J. Lonsdale, States and Social Processes in Africa: A Historiographical survey, African Studies Review, 24, 2/3
(1994), 139-225. See also T. Ranger, The Invention of Tradition in Colonial Africa, in E. Hobsbawn & T.O.
Ranger (Eds.), The Invention of Ethnicity in Zimbabwe, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)
300
115
the Acholi, leading to deeper ethnic division and conflicts.
Politics then
emphasized sharp differences and exclusive tribal cultures and identities,

exaggerated and even invented differences among the people, laying the ground
for conflict. The end result has been politicization of ethnicity in order to satisfy
selfish economic and political ends.
In this context, the Acholi and their
neighbours increasingly saw themselves as different and as distinct from each

other.
In other parts of East Africa where this labeling and reifying was not highly
politicized, the exercise did not contribute to conflicts.
With regard to, for
example, the Sukuma, Brandstroom notes that they were labeled and
categorised as a bounded and united tribe during the colonial years. Like the
Acholi, the Sukuma were registered as a distinct tribe in the documents of the
colonial administration and a Sukuma Federation of Chiefs came into being.301
While this made the Sukuma think of their own identity against their
neighbours, political players in post-independent Tanzania did not manipulate
this for selfish ends. Instead, the unitary politics developed and played after
independence down-sized such colonial categorization in Tanzania. In Uganda,
post-colonial leaders fell prey to this British divisive politics which laid the
foundation for and encouraged polarization of ethnic identities rather than
trans-ethnic alignments. This can partly be explained by the way Uganda had
been divided into the North and South. The immediate post-independent rulers,
with little historical records of their own to rally the masses, turned to petty
301
P. Brandstroom, Who is a Sukuma and Who is a Nyamwezi: Ethnic Identity in West- Central Tanzania, Working
Papers in African Studies, 27, (Uppsala: Department of Cultural Anthropology, Uppsala University, 1986).
116
ethnic differences to win political favours from one or the other of the different
ethnic groups leading to division and later conflicts. (A later chapter will explore
the role of political leadership and conflict in Uganda).
After World War II, a substantial number of Acholi were or had been members of
the colonial army and police forces. Because cotton production, introduced in
Acholiland in 1930s, and unskilled migrant labour yielded such low returns,
many Acholi with army or police ties attempted to join the growing wartime
forces. By the end of World War II, some 5600 Acholi were serving in the army;
roughly 20 percent of the male household heads then paying poll tax in the
district. Demobilization after the war saw most of these men discharged, though
enough Acholi remained to make them the Ugandan tribe with the highest
number of soldiers.302
Ali Mazrui, too, emphasizes that, after the KAR, the
Acholi remained dominant in post-independence armies. The Acholi constituted

the largest single group within the armed forces of Uganda, although they were
clearly one of the smaller groups in the total population of Uganda. Between a
third and a half of the Uganda army consisted of the Acholi.303 He adds that
their preponderance was partly due to their categorization as a tribal unit in
the colonial period.304 Mazrui acknowledges the role of the British colonialists,
first in creating the Acholi as an ethnic identity and, secondly, in establishing
their dominance in the army; hence the ethnification process in the military.
302

A. Mazrui, Soldiers and Kinsmen in Uganda, 445.
304
303
117
In any case, their superior position in the army also portrayed them as a cruel
people since the colonial army was very repressive.
They have since been
stereotyped, hated, and isolated by other ethnic groups especially from the
south.305 Not only do stereotypes distort history through oversimplification, but
they are also extremely dangerous breeding grounds for bigotry, fear,
resentment, irrationality, animosity, hatred and ethnic conflict and cleansing.
In extreme cases, as Kasozi, Prunier, and M. Mamdani, have noted, stereotypes
have culminated in mass violence, the mass displacement of people, ethnic
cleansing, pogroms and genocide.306 This, otherwise normal process, became
the most important feature of the North-South divide in post-colonial Uganda
politics. As Mamdani observes, Every institution touched by the hand of the
colonial state was given a pronounced regional or ethnic character. It became a
truism that a soldier must be a northerner, a civil servant, a southerner, and a
merchant an Asian.307
The implication of this institutional division of labour, and the organization of

power, could only be realized during the post-colonial period with attempts to
reform the state. In addition, the assignment to the north, for instance, as a
source of soldiers and policemen had negative implications for stability as the
ruling elite during the immediate post-colonial period, who were from the north
(i.e., Obote, 1962-1971) used this military predominance to acquire and retain
305
Interview with Adimola A. 2007.

A. B. Kasozi, The Social Origins of Violence in Uganda, see also G. Prunier, Armed Conflict in the Heart of
Africa: Sudans Regional War, in Le monde Diplomatique (Feb 1997), available online:
<mondepliplo.com/1997/02/02sudan>, M. Mamdani, When Victims become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism and
Genocide in Rwanda.
307
M. Mamdani, Citizens and Subjects: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of late Colonialism, (Princeton N.J:
Princeton University Press.1996), 29.
306
118
power undemocratically. Such leaders then resorted to excessive use of the

military in trying to solve what were typically political issues.
After Uganda attained political independence in 1962, this ethnic division of

labour continued. Under Obote from Lango (1962-1971) and until 1985, almost
two-thirds of the army came from the north, especially from Acholi. In this
period, not only did the tension between North and South increase, but the
politicization of ethnic groups was also exacerbated,308 although or perhaps
precisely because, Obote tried to pursue an anti-tribal policy. In combination,
with the failure of successive post-colonial leaders to work out generally
accepted and institutionalized peaceful means of resolving differences, the
result is the current conflict in places like Acholiland. The ethnification and
militarization of politics therefore remains an important factor in any
explanation of Ugandas post-independent conflicts.
With the dominance of colonial power, a complex process ensued in which

ethnicity actualized itself more and more in struggles to participate in central
government. In relation to the Europeans who held the central power and to
other ethnic groups, the Acholi increasingly objectified their own way of life,
expressed in the invention of ethnicity, traditions of their own, and an ethnic
history.
308
H. Holger Bernt, Ethnicity and Military Rule in Uganda: A Study of Ethnicity as a Political Factor in Uganda,
Based on a Discussion of Political Anthropology and the Application of its Results. Research Paper, 43, ( Uppsala:
The Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, 1977 )
119
British colonialism, therefore, remains very instrumental in the construction of

Acholi ethnic identity. Having brought the different Acholi chiefdoms together,
and later congealed them in a single district, the British then gave the Acholi
occupational identity in the army and as labourers in plantations in the south.
Due to the fact that the colonial army was repressive, just like the first postcolonial armies, the Acholi, who largely constituted it, were perceived as
repressive. Beyond this, the colonial army, like the later post-colonial armies of
Obote (1962-1971) and Amin (1971-1979), was regarded as the home for
illiterates. The Acholi were then stereotyped as illiterates and social-outcasts
in Uganda.309 Stereotypes always have simplicity largely because they provide
simple and deceptive explanations of complex situations and historical realities.
This trend became a dangerous phenomenon in Ugandas politics and partly
explains the current conflicts in Acholiland.
In 1944, the Acholi Association was founded as a sports and cultural club.
With this, Behrend tells us, the Acholi congealed not only as an administrative,
but also as a cultural unit. Lectures on Acholi music and language reinforced
and spread the idea of a common Acholi identity. In 1948, the Acholi developed
the idea of having a paramount chief for the entire Acholi District who would
preside over the, until then, smaller chiefs (rwots); and in 1950 a faction
attempted to follow the model of the King of Buganda and establish a king of
Acholi to restore our beloved King Awich.310 The idea of a paramount Acholi
leader was promoted and several terms were suggested for the position, notably
309
310

This development led to a new struggle over the paramount status between the Payira and Padibe.
120
rwot Acholi (Chief or king of the Acholi) lawir rwodi (the head of the chiefs),
rwot madit (the big chief) and Laloyo maber (the winner is good).311 At the
climax of this quest for change, however, a struggle over the paramount status
erupted between the Payira and Padibe.
This shows how disruptive British
colonial arrangement had been on the development of Acholi political system.

Besides, this innovation as well reflects on the nature of ethnic consciousness
then developing in Acholiland. It was a move towards self-determination in the
independence process. Ethnicity in Acholiland was crystallizing amidst political
frustrations and divide-and-rule politics played by the British.
Emerging party politics on the eve of independence added to the struggle. As

noted by Gertzel, Party leaders established their legitimacy at the district level
largely by usurping the role of the chiefs as the recognized spokesmen of the
local people.312 When Ugandas largest political party; the Uganda National
Congress (UNC), with Milton Obote as its national leader, committed itself to
Payiras claim to Acholi paramountcy the divide widened.313
What this illustrates is that Acholi ethnic identity developed fast during the
period of British colonialism and mounting frustrations. Acholi identity was
then forming in competition with other ethnic groups. This set the precedent of
continued Acholi unity against the other groups they considered negatively.
Such polarization was widened in the post-colonial period.
311
F. Sverker, Living With Bad Surrounding, 70.

C. Gertzel, Party and Locality in Northern Uganda, 77.
313
Around the time of independence, Uganda National Congress (UNC) was renamed Uganda Peoples Congress
(UPC).
312
121
The Acholi community under British colonial rule also had inner contradictions.
As Acholi identity was forming in competition with other ethnic groups, the
internal opposition between rich and poor, aristocrats and commoners, elders
and the young, as well as between women and men was increasing. According
to Behrend, such internal contradictions were partly the result of the demise of
Acholi traditional setting during the period of Turko-Egyptians control. There
was no respect for any kind of leadership and elders. Rich Acholi wanted to
dominate the poor ones, thereby creating a kind of internal division. An
increasing social and economic inequality was also emerging between East and
West Acholi. While Gulu District in the west developed more rapidly due to its
proximity to the center and its greater fertility, the Kitgum District in the East
remained peripheral, serving more as a reservoir for recruiting labour, soldiers
for the kings African Rifles and the police.314
Rudimentary formal education
became the criterion for a military career.315
This division within Acholiland has a lot to do with the current turbulence.
Kitgum and Pader that fall within the poor eastern section have remained the
base for different insurgent groups after the Acholi lost political power and
monopoly in the military to the National Resistance Army of Yoweri Museveni in
1986.
British colonial rule in Uganda promoted inequality in development among the

different ethnic groups. This was mirrored within the Acholi District. While the
314
315
H. Behrend, Is Alice Lakwena a Witch?, 18.

A. Omara-Otunnu, Politics and Military in Uganda, 1890-1985, 44.
122
colonial administration recruited the bureaucratic elite from the south,

especially from Buganda, the north of Uganda was used as a reservoir of labour.
This ethnic division of labour contributed substantially to the opposition
between north and south and between the Nilotes and Bantu that became so
significant in Ugandas history.316 This opposition which was invented in the
scholarly discourse of linguists, anthropologists and historians founded
renewed actualization in the history of conflict in Acholiland.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the most important political and
administrative unit the British created and respected was the Acholi District
Council. The intention of the British was that through such Councils, the Acholi
would relate with other people more easily and positively, and it would be easier
to administer them. As R.M Bere the District Commissioner stated in 1947:
The urgent trend of modern administration has been to bring
the clans together to make the Acholi conscious of their unity
as a single people without their individualistic background.
To this end the districts of Gulu and Chua were amalgamated
in 1937, when a unified district was formed; at the same time
the Acholi Council with sects not only for chiefs but for
representatives of the people from all parts of the country was
brought into being.317
Whereas the intention of the British was clearly positive and designed to
promote the unity of Acholi and positive relations with other people, in later
years, parochial ethnic nationalism developed.
In one of its resolutions, the
Council suggested that the bus routes then in the hands of an Indian firm
should be given to an Acholi company.318 The feeling then was that Indian
316

R. M. Bere, An Outline of Acholi History, 8.
318
317
123
control of such routes did not benefit the Acholi. The expectation was that once
the Acholi took direct control of wealth generating projects, this would help
alleviate their poor economic plight and enable them to compete with the south.
They also came up with several suggestions and resolutions to protect their
identity and interests as Acholi. For example, they requested that the present
structure of the Native Authority should be changed so that instead of all the
county chiefs being responsible individually to the District Commissioner, there
should be a Lawi Rwot (Head chief/rwot) who should be responsible for them
all.319
The trend that developed was that the Acholi Council increasingly became a
mouth piece for Acholi protest and unity against other non-Acholi groups. In
the 1950s when political party activities began, it even acted as an ethnic
institution to campaign for Acholi privileges and resources vis--vis those of
others in the protectorate. The point is that the politicization of ethnicity, which
has a lot to do with the current conflict situation in Uganda and in Acholi in
particular,
was
the
outcome
of
British
policies
and
administrative
arrangements. Post-colonial leaders later magnified and militarized it with

major-negative results.
In their territorial re-arrangement, the British had also separated the Acholi
from their neighbours using rigid ethnic boundaries. What became Acholi
District was demarcated and surveyed by the British. As Girling F.K. writes:
319
124
The whole of Acholiland, to a greater or lesser degree now

forms one large group of persons, united by bonds, which are
a combination of kinship, territorial political relationship and
ritual; as well as by bonds of common subjection to alien
rulers, and of territorial and secular relationships.320
As Acholi District developed, others like Madi, Teso, and Alur were also
promoted. No interaction across districts was encouraged by the British. Worse
still, even pre-colonial trade in ivory and cattle, bark-cloth from Buganda, and
hoes was not encouraged by British colonialism. According to G. N. Uzoigwe,
Commerce across ethnic groups had encouraged a good deal of co-operation
between the northern communities and Bunyoro. Such co-operation was both of
an economic and military nature321.
The point is that British administrative economic re-arrangements and reforms

deepened ethnic cleavages.
The problem with the reforms and the political
organizations that emerged after independence was that they did not transcend
the limitations of the colonial political economy and politics, particularly
ethnicity and regionalism. Therefore, even when the colonial period contributed
to the present trouble in Acholiland, much of the blame lies with the postcolonial leadership in Uganda and their failure to learn from History.
PRE-INDEPENDENCE POLITICS IN ACHOLILAND (1950-1962)

By the late 1950s, as Uganda moved towards independence, many of the
contradictions of colonial rule became obvious. The late 1940s and 1950s saw
a number of political and economic reforms as a result of the anti-colonial
320

G. N. Uzoigwe, Inter-Ethnic Co-operation, in S. Osoba & I. Obaro (Eds.), Tarikh; The Peoples of Uganda in
the 19th Century, 3, 2 (Great Britain: Longman, Whitstable Litho Ltd, 1967), 69-77.
321
125
movement. Reforms allowed for enhanced rights of association, permitted the

formation of co-operatives and trade unions, and witnessed the removal of some
racial restrictions on trade and employment.
It was also the eve of the
establishment of political parties.322
The first Ugandan political party, the Uganda National Congress (UNC), founded
in 1952-1953 was predominantly Protestant and Buganda. The next major
political development was the formation of the Democratic Party in 1956 to
advance the interests of Catholics in the administration of Buganda Kingdom.323
The rise of these political parties and their competition for power, when it
eventually came, widened cleavages in Acholiland.
The first constituency of the Uganda Peoples Congress under Obote from Lango
was the non-Bantu speaking north. Support in this region was often expressed
in ethnic terms in the sense that while Obote was very popular among his Langi
tribe, he was not initially heralded among the Acholi. Even then, the identity
Obote used most was the large northern region composed of the Lwo mainly
rather than his Langi tribe. Obote was from the Luo-speaking Lango ethnic
group.324 According to Colin Leys, when the Uganda National Congress (UNC)
was formed, it was seen by its activists in Acholi as the beginning of an
independence movement at a time when many Acholi were serving in the Kings
322
J. Oloka-Onyango, New Wine or New Bottles: Movement Politics and One-partyism in Uganda, in J. Mugaju
and J. Oloka-Onyango (Eds.), No Party Democracy in Uganda: Myths and Realities, (Kampala: Fountain Publishers,
2000), 174.
323
J. Okuku, Ethnicity, State Power and the Democratization Process in Uganda, 10
324
R. R. Atkinson, The Roots of Ethnicity, 7-8.
126
African Rifles in the operation against the Mau-Mau in Kenya.325 The formation
in the district of the Democratic Party, which quickly became strong in
Acholiland after 1956, was looked upon by the UNC militants as an attempt by
the missionaries, abetted by the colonial administration, to create a moderate
organization subject to their influence, which would draw support away from
the UNC.326
The point being emphasised here is the new dimension and divisive politics that
this new political dispensation brought into Acholiland.
The most notable
result, as Colin Leys notes, is that There is no doubt that hostility between the
parties, exacerbated by the monopoly of patronage and influence of the
victorious party, runs very deep in the Acholi countryside and it is sharpened by
the aggressive and bitter political style which the Acholi cultivate.327
In other words, political party competition exacerbated Acholi traditions of clan

and chiefdom competition. The UNC (later Uganda Peoples Congress) resorted to
supporting divisive events and manipulating local politics to secure votes. For
instance, as Gertzel noted, Party leaders established their legitimacy at the
district level largely by usurping the role of the chiefs as the recognized
spokesmen of the local people.328
The UNC intervened further to support
Payiras claim to Acholi Paramountcy against the wishes of the Padibe. Such
325
C. Leys, Politicians and Policies: An Essay on Politics in Acholi, Uganda, 17.

Although the provincial administration had no reason to favour Catholicism, there is evidence that its officers
shared the Catholic fear of the supposed communist tendencies of the UNC and regarded with sympathy many of the
nice, sensible and reliable men, many of them school teachers, who were drawn to the DP by their religious
affiliation.
327
C. Leys, Politicians and Policies: An Essay on Politics in Acholi, Uganda, 17.
328
C. Gertzel, Party and Locality in Northern Uganda, 77.
326
127
manipulation of the Acholi as an ethnic group continued well into the period
after independence using the army.
As Atkinson ably puts it, as the army grew larger and more powerful, receiving
ever greater shares of the national budget, the officer ranks were transformed
from a small number of mostly Europeans, Baganda and other southern
Ugandans to a much larger group increasingly from the north of the country.
The majority from the north still came from Acholiland.329
Under Obote (1962 to1971), as will be shown later, a process set in that would
prove extremely significant for the later history of Uganda in general and
Acholiland in particular, namely, the militarization of politics.
Nevertheless,
already under Obote, the military became an instrument of domestic politics

leading to conflicts.
This chapter has contended that, in their administrative reforms in Acholiland,

the British had helped to create a united Acholi people and district out of
several independent clans. Having done this, however, British colonialism then
superimposed a new political and social order and consciousness that lay the
foundation for the current turbulence in this sub-region. First, by destroying
the traditional political set-up of the Acholi, the British ushered this area and
its people into a new phase of confusion. Through their policy of divide and rule,
they weakened the rwotship system, and created new rwots and a sense of
329
128
centralization of power among a people who had for long established their own
democratic order of work.
Within the Uganda protectorate, the Acholi were marginalized and given
peripheral duties as labourers or recruits in the colonial army. This hardened
Acholi ethnic consciousness and beliefs that there were secondary citizens. As
Atkinson has stated elsewhere, Ethnic groups and ethnic identity, then, are not
a necessary or natural outcome of cultural beliefs and practices, but a creation
of politics and ideology.330 British politics/policies in Uganda in the colonial
period and those pursued by the post-colonial regimes in Uganda since 1962
had a lot to do with the current state of conflicts in Acholiland.
chapter will provide an in-depth analysis of the post-independence era.
330
129
The next
CHAPTER FOUR
POST INDEPENDENCE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND

CONFLICT IN UGANDA, 1962-2006
Africa has remained underdeveloped because political leaders on
the continent are confused and keep meandering. The continent
has plenty of endowments but the leaders lack clear vision to
identify the problems of the society to frame proper intervention for
continued progress (Says Yoweri Museveni, President of Uganda).331
This chapter will analyse the role of independent political leadership

in the ensuing conflict since 1962.
Introduction
Uganda became independent from British colonial rule on 9th October 1962.
However, unlike other African states like Tanzania, Kenya, Egypt and Senegal
where independence was followed by relative political stability, Uganda has
experienced extended periods of violent internal strife resulting in massive
destruction of life and property. Apart from the period from 1962 to 1964 when
the country enjoyed relative peace and stability,332 Uganda is an example of a
post-colonial society that has been riddled with internal conflicts; one which is
comparable to the experiences of states like Sudan, Chad, and Democratic
Republic of Congo.
During the past forty-five years of independence, Uganda has had nine national
presidents and governments. The first government under Sir Edward Mutesa II
ended in 1966 when Apollo Milton Obote (then Prime Minister), assisted by the
331
332
The Daily Monitor, March 12, 2009.

The Daily Monitor, March 12, 2009.
130
army, overthrew the 1962 independence Constitutional arrangements and

introduced the 1967 Republican Constitution. By this manouvre, Obote had
overthrown Mutesa II in a palace coup, as the two leaders had initially been
part of an alliance (Kabaka Yekka and Uganda Peoples Congress). Obote was
later overthrown by General Idi Amin on the 25th of January 1971.
Idi Amin ruled Uganda with an iron hand until a combined force of Tanzania
and Uganda exiles forced him out in 1979. In the five years after Idi Amins fall,
Uganda was ruled by Yusuf Lule for sixty-eight days, Godfrey Binaisa, Paul
Muwanga, who rigged the 1980 elections that ushered in Milton Obotes second
rule, and General Tito-Okello, a one time army commander under Obote who
later overthrew his boss. Okello was subsequently forced out of power by the
National Resistance Army led by Yoweri Museveni in 1986. All these changes in
government and leadership involved unconstitutional means and wars,
reflecting the crisis of governance that has dogged post-colonial Uganda. From
1964, therefore, the political situation has been so volatile that Uganda has
become almost synonymous with political disorder, social chaos and conflict. It
is this apparent tragic paradox that this work attempts to explain.
Ali Mazrui333 and Nelson Kasfir have explained the political upheavals in
Uganda since independence as a result of ethnic tension and ethnic diversities.
Other scholars like Tarsis Kabwegyere, Lwanga-Lunyiigo334 and others contend
that post-independence instability and conflicts in Uganda are a legacy of
333
A. Mazrui, Soldiers and Kinsmen in Uganda, and N. Kasfir, The Shrinking Political Arena, 60.
T. Kabwegyere, The Politics of State Formation, 67-83. See also S. Lwanga-Lunyiigo, The Colonial roots of
Internal Conflict, 24 -41.
334
131
British colonialism and particularly the effects of British colonial policy of divide
and rule.
While these views are persuasive, this study contends that conflicts in postindependent Uganda are essentially political in nature and have their origin in
how politics has been organized in the post-colonial period. Given, that politics
is usually organized around institutions, any proper understanding of conflicts
in Uganda must take into account the role of leadership, especially the
presidency and the personalities of those who have governed Uganda since
independence and how they have managed or mismanaged its institutions,
leading to conflict.
Conceptual Framework
Conflict has been defined differently depending on the context in which the
term is used. K.J. Holsti defines conflict as the contentions or disagreements
that arise between interested parties in a given issue or activity. Considering
that parties would always seek to achieve certain goals by defending particular
positions in a given issue or activity, their demands and action would run
counter to the interests and objectives of other parties.335
According to Coser, conflict is a struggle over values and claims to scarce

status, power and resources whose main aim is to neutralize, injure or eliminate
rivals.336 While the above definitions are useful, they only regard conflicts as
335
336
K. J. Holsti, International Politics; A Framework for Analysis (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1972), 447.
A. Coser, The Function of Social Concept, (New York: Free Press, 1956), 8.
132
negative phenomena that are completely disruptive and dislocating. This study
contends that conflicts can also lead to a better understanding of one or both
parties in the conflict. This study argues that most of the conflicts in Africa
(Uganda inclusive) have been by-products of political activities orchestrated by
political leadership.
Leadership
Leadership is defined differently by different scholars. Foster Byarugaba
defines leadership as the interpersonal influence exercised in a situation and
directed through the communication process aimed at the attainment of a
specific goal or goals.337
Put briefly, to lead is to influence people so that they
can accept the ideas of the leader. Such influence can be positive or negative,
depending on the personality and capability of any given leader. The influence of
most post-colonial leaders in Uganda has been negative and divisive, leading to
the unending conflicts the country has experienced.
Ochieng-Odhiambo gives us, perhaps, a more comprehensive but precise

definition. He defines leadership as an organizing element for the survival of
any human community.
Odhiambos contention is that the existence of a
society is immediately in jeopardy if there is no qualitative leadership.338 Indeed,

the lack of qualitative leadership appears to be the main problem faced by
Uganda since independence 1962.
337
F. Byarugaba, Trends in the National Resistance Movement Leadership: Basis for Domestic, Regional and
Global Relations, in Kabweru Mukwaya (Ed.), Uganda, Riding the Political Tiger: Security and War in the Great
Lakes Region, (Kampala: Makerere University Printery, 2004).
338
Ochieng-Odhiambo, The Crisis of Leadership in Africa, CODESRIA, 3, 1995.
133
The current perception of leadership in Uganda, as elsewhere in Africa, is that

most African leaders have not lived up to the task of developing their areas and
enforcing meaningful unity necessary for development. Instead, they have
contributed to ethnic division, conflicts and economic malaise. As A. G. A. Bello
correctly pointed out, most African political leaders are dictatorial, despotic,
autocratic, intolerant and repressive. They do not brook any opposition from
any quarters whatever and will use any means, fair or foul, to keep themselves
in power even when their actions negate the yearnings and aspirations of the
people.339
This is precisely how post-colonial Ugandan leaders have conducted themselves.

Ugandas political leaders have, since independence, failed to build a consensus
on which political institutions can be built to resolve political conflicts, short of
physical force340. Such force, however, is not a state monopoly entirely, but a
means by which political groups seek to establish their hegemony over other
competing political groups. This implies that when a group is denied access to
political and economic resources, it resorts to military options, leading to
upheavals and conflicts that have come to define the Ugandan state.
Leadership should be the logical outgrowth of the existence of a society of

individuals and their interests. In Africa, however, the violence is traceable to
defective political leadership. Citizens are victims of defective leadership,
instead, especially given the reality of the state or leadership having secured
339
A. G. Bello, On the Concept of Rationality and Legitimacy of the Constitution, in Olusegun Oladipo (Ed.),
Third Way in African philosophy: Essays in Honour of Kwasi Wiredu (Ibadan, Hope publishers, 2004), 241.
340
134
power and authority through the use of force.341 This analysis fits very well
within the Ugandan political experience after independence. This study
contends that the trouble with Uganda is not its diverse ethnic nature but
clearly a failure of leadership.
The leaders who governed Uganda from
independence have played a vital role in determining whether or not the

inherited ethnic diversities could be united in order to create social peace. In
Uganda, this factor explains the unremitting and politically motivated violence
since 1964.
As Mudoola notes, Ugandan political and military elites have, over time, worked
out political formulae not as a means through which conflicts can be resolved
for the ultimate good of the political system as in developed countries, but as
tactical weapons for taking care of interests articulated by the political elites;
interests peculiar to themselves or the social forces they purport to
represent342. Such formulae range from abusing constitutional processes,
involving the army in politics to solve political differences, and manipulating
ethnicity. They would adhere to such formulae as long as their interests are
served. If they felt that they were still disadvantaged and were strong enough to
operate outside the prevailing political formulae they would do so. In this way
they created situations that culminated indifferences and, later, open and
violent conflict.
341
D. Nkurunziza and L. Mugumya (Eds.), Towards a Culture of Peace and Non-Violent Action in Uganda, 2,
(2000), 71.
342
135
POST-INDEPENDENCE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP AND CONFLICT

At independence in 1962, the new Ugandan state was in a fairly good position to
give its citizens more than the two years of relative peace and stability it enjoyed
between 1962 and1964. A resource-rich country, colonial Uganda had long been
paying the costs of its administration and, by 1916, was no longer a burden to
the British taxpayer.343 Between 1945 and 1960, Uganda peasants paid over
118 million to the administration and development of their country.
independence,
unlike
Kenya,
Uganda
attracted
no
substantial
After
foreign
investment or aid and, unlike other dependent ex-colonies, Ugandas

subsistence sector was not only self-supporting but very strong.344 Overall, the
new Uganda state was in a fairly good economic position to sustain a strong
political environment. Instead between 1964 and 2006, Ugandans were exposed
to a high level of violence that far exceeds that of any other people in eastern
Africa345. This failure can be attributed largely to Ugandas leadership.
As Mudoola argues,
the period between 1962 and May 1966 was one of relative peace, not
necessarily because the leaders were committed to the politics of
reconciliation and peaceful resolution of political differences but simply
because some of the leaders and the forces they represented then did not
feel strong enough to question the independence constitutional
arrangements.346
This implies that, once any of Ugandas immediate post-independent leaders
found himself and the party he represented strong enough to initiate
unconstitutional or constitutional changes of interest to him and his party, he
343
C. C. Wrigley, Crops and Wealth in Uganda: An Agrarian History, (East Africa: Indres, 17, 1959), 40.
A. B. K. Kasozi, The Social Origin of Violence in Uganda, 3.
345
A. B. K. Kasozi, The Social Origin of Violence in Uganda, 4.
346
344
136
would do so. In this way, Ugandan leaders laid ground for differences and later
instability. This tendency is documented below.
Obote Apollo Milton & Edward Mutesa IIs period (1962-1971)

Uganda was granted independence in 1962 with Apollo Milton Obote, leader of
Uganda Peoples Congress (UPC), as executive Prime Minister, supported
temporarily by the powerful Kabaka of Buganda and his Kabaka Yekka (KY)
Party. The Kabaka became the president the following year.347 The position of a
powerful kingdom of Buganda within Uganda, with the Kabaka as president
without
real
political
powers,
remained
source
of
controversy
and
instability.348 The constitutional arrangement then was such that Buganda and
other kingdom areas of Ankole, Toro, Bunyoro and the district of Busoga would
remain federal states within Uganda. Obote respected this arrangement for as
long as it served the faction that he represented (i.e. UPC) and as long as he
calculated that he and his UPC were not yet strong enough to initiate changes.
Apollo Milton Obotes leadership, first as Prime Minister and later as a president
(1966-1971), was characterized by ethnic and constitutional manipulation
largely against Buganda.
The first issue used was the Lost Counties, i. e.
counties of Bunyoro like Bugangazi and Buyaga which the British had given to
Buganda as pay-back for Bugandas assistance in conquering Bunyoro under
Kabalega in the 1890s. There were other boundary disputes between Bukedi
and Bugisu in the East of Uganda, the Bamba and Bakonjo rebellion against the
347
348
H. Kyemba, A State of Blood, 22.

A. Gakwandi, Uganda Pocket Facts, 22.
137
rule of the Batoro.349 Such conflicts and especially the issue of lost counties of
Bunyoro was what Obote used to isolate Buganda. When President Mutesa II
protested about the return of the lost counties to Bunyoro, Obote adhered to
the constitution of 1962. The 1962 Constitution clearly stated that, in case of
boundary conflict or people who wanted to secede, a referendum would be
conducted.350 In any difference then where the constitution worked in his
favour, Obote would always refer the Kabaka to the sanctity of the Constitution
of 1962.
The Obote-Mutesa showdown ended with the break-up of the UPC-KY alliance
that had enabled Obote (a Langi) to associate with Federal Buganda and be
granted political power by the British as Executive Prime Minister in 1962. By
then, he had already sown seeds of hatred against Buganda within other ethnic
groups, especially Bunyoro, and other kingdom areas that were initially opposed
to the presidency of Mutesa II.351 On the issue of lost counties, political actors
from outside Buganda believed a historic wrong had been set right.352 This
made parliamentarians from outside Buganda and especially Banyoro to
support Obote. He also benefited by cross-overs of 14 Parliamentarians from
Kabaka Yekka and Democratic Party to Uganda Peoples Congress (UPC) by the
end of 1964, thus gaining the much needed two-thirds majority for his Party in
the National Assembly.353 With this majority, Obote officially ended the KY-UPC
349
S. R. Karugire, Roots of Political Instability in Uganda, 45.

S. R. Karugire, Roots of Political Instability in Uganda, 45.
351
352
353
E. Masinde Aseka, Transformational Leadership in East Africa, (Kampala: Fountain Publishers, 2005), 313.
350
138
alliance and continued to rule Uganda under his majority party (UPC). This
marked the beginning of political and later conflictual problems in Uganda.
Obotes leadership is also held responsible for the involvement of the military in
politics and in settling what appeared to be political matters using the military
(i.e. militarization of politics). As Ugandas first post-colonial leader, Obote set
the standard that subsequent leaders after him tended to follow. Several cases
illustrate this.
In 1964, all the three East African countries (Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania)
experienced army mutinies. There were mutinies in the Colito Barracks in Dares-Salam, Lanet Barracks near Nakuru, Kenya and Jinja Barracks near Jinja in
Uganda. This was an indication of serious social and transitional problems in
the management of inherited bureaucracies, including the military. The three
East African leaders handled these events differently and hence experienced
different histories in civil-military relations in the subsequent years. While
Nyerere and Tanzania called in the assistance of British Marines to crush the
mutiny, in Kenya, Kenyatta took it as a lesson on the dangers of coups and took
steps to keep the army out of politics. Kenyatta resorted to carrying out ethnic
balancing in the army to neutralize it politically.354
In Uganda, Obote took care to nurse the military as a power base outside the
traditional ethnic constituencies. First, he gave in to the demands of soldiers,
hence creating a tradition of demands by soldiers.
354
E. Masinde-Aseka, Transformational Leadership in East Africa, 239.
139
Secondly, no effort was
ever made to rebuild the army as a national institution after the mutiny. The
military, largely from the North was left intact as it had been before the mutiny
on the grounds of what Mudoola calls the doctrine of Ethno-functionalism,355
which was vividly illustrated by Felix Onama, then Minister of Defence:
Thousands of Northerners (notably Acholi and Langi) died in
the two World Wars to defend Uganda against Nazism and
Fascism and if the young generation or their children who
have grown up in the North would like to follow in the
footsteps of their fathers, nobody is going to stop me from
recruiting them into the army.356.
Instead there was a general purge of army officer corps in which Bantu officers
were the victims. Among these officers were Major Katabarwa, Major Kisira, and
Captain Irima.357
Obotes tribesmen, the Acholi and Langi, then came to
dominate the rank and file of the army. This process of ethnification of the
military has dogged Uganda since then and partly accounts for the conflicts
after independence.
In the struggle for political power, therefore, the political leaders and other
ethnic group actors then made maximum use of the resources available to
them. With such an ethnic based army, the Obote regime was then prepared for
a show-down with Buganda. This tradition of using the national army as a
force to protect the interest of political leaders has since remained a feature of
Ugandan politics. Every leader has to ensure that the army is largely
constituted of members of his ethnic group. During Idi Amins rule (1971-1979)
West Nilers, mostly Kakwa and Lugbara dominated the then Uganda Army
355
D. Mudoola, Communal Conflict in the Military and its Political Consequences116-138.

See Uganda Parliamentary Debates, 3, 3205.
357
356
140
(Amin was a Kakwa). The National Resistance Army of Yoweri Museveni (1986to-date) is largely dominated by Banyankole and Bahima. Of the five Generals,
all are Banyankole. Museveni is a Munyankole of Hima stock.
This clearly supports this studys earlier contention that conflicts in Uganda are
largely political rather than ethnic. Ethnicity is only used as a factor of support
by one group against the other, hence its politicization. Secondly, Obotes
manipulation of the National Assembly, National Constitution and the army still
lends credence to the argument that post-independence Ugandan leadership
failed to work out a basic political consensus on the basis of which political
institutions can be built to resolve political conflict; short of physical force. Post
independence political leaders adopt political formulae as tactical weapons for
taking care of their own interests and that of the group they purportedly
represent at the expense of others. This leads to conflict.
1966 remains a turning point in the political History of Uganda. On February 4,

1966, at about 2 Oclock, when Parliament was due to convene, Parliament
Building was, for the first time in Ugandas history, surrounded by heavily
armed troops purportedly on the orders of the Army Commander, Milton Obote.
An opposition motion denouncing Prime Minister Obote as corrupt and accusing
him of plotting to overthrow his own government under the Presidency of
Kabaka Mutesa II was due to be tabled.358 Obote was also accused of filling the
Uganda army with Acholi and Langi and of training a personal army359. Daudi
358
359
E. Masinde-Aseka, Transformational Leadership in East Africa, 314.

141
Ochieng, an opposition member of Parliament, then demanded Obotes

resignation and called on UPC to appoint a new Prime Minister. He also called
for the suspension of Idi Amin, the second highest ranking officer in the army
on grounds that he had participated in the looting of Gold and Ivory from the
Congo (Zaire). Obote responded to this accusation with coercion and intimidated
parliamentarians opposed to his tarnished leadership. Vocal parliamentarians
like Mathias Ngobi, Daudi Ochieng were arrested.
Amin was not suspended
but, instead, sent on two weeks leave.360
This event brought the Obote-Mutesa II confrontation to a height never

experienced before. Both leaders then resorted to ethnic manipulation, with the
military as the main sector to win over. While Kabaka Mutesa II put his trust in
the Teso and Bantu elements in the army, Obote solicited the support of highranking northerners, notably from Lango (Obotes tribe), Acholi (Lwo brothers)
and few from West Nile led by Idi Amin. The Obote government also expanded
the Ugandan army until it was the seventh largest on the continent.361 Obote
then accused Mutesa II of colluding with the Iteso army commander, Brigadier
Shaban Opolot, to use the army to topple the government.
The plot was an
excuse for Obote to arrest some of the chief supporters of the Kabaka on May
22, 1966, including Brigadier Opolot. He also organized a battalion under Idi
Amin to storm the Kabakas palace at Lubiri. This forms the 1966 crisis, as
known in Ugandas history.362 The first major victim of the Obote coup of 1966
had been the 1962 Constitution and constitutionalism in post-Obote Uganda.
360
361
A. Mazrui & M. Tidy, Nationalism and New States in Africa (London: Longman Publishing house, 1984), 250.
E. Masinde-Aseka, Transformational Leadership in East Africa, 316
362
142
The 1962 Constitution had been the result of protracted negotiations involving
the colonial power, ethnic forces and the political parties. It had given political
ethnic leaders an opportunity for meaningful political action. Therefore without
it, Uganda entered a political abyss and rule of tyrants.
The result of this crisis ran deep in Ugandas history and state security.
Buganda as a region and the Baganda as a people were isolated by other tribes.
This made the Buganda support anyone opposed to Obote and explains their
support for the Amin coup of 1971 and the NRA war under Museveni against
Obote between 1981 and 1985. Other regions and especially Buganda, later,
also felt that northerners had dominated the Obote government at their
expense.
The evidence they had was very strong.
Milton Obote (northerner)
became President after the crisis of 1966, while Felix Kenyi Onama (northerner)
was Defence Minister, Erinayo Oryema (northerner) Inspector-General of police
and Akena-Adoko (northerner) was Head of Intelligence.363 This polarization
accounts greatly for the upheavals that followed. Idi Amin also exploited this
period of crisis to recruit many Nubians and Southern Sudanese into the
Ugandan army. Their careers in the army depended on Amin alone and they
owed him and not Obote personal loyalty.364
Other than involving the army in solving what was largely a political problem,
this intervention by Obote and Mutesa made the army less national and more
ethnic in character. The dangers of politicizing the military largely accounts for
363
364
O. Amaza, Musevenis Long March: From Guerilla to Statesman (Kampala: Fountain publishers 1998), 152.
143
the instability and unconstitutional regime change in post-independence

Uganda. This supports this studys earlier argument that political leaders in
Uganda should be held responsible for setting up the foundation where physical
force became a matter of first choice rather than the last resort in the settlement
of political differences. This weakened institutions like Parliament, the
Judiciary, and the Constitution as a legal guide and other civilian institutions
as arena for resolving political conflicts.
In 1967 Obote then proceeded to introduce his own rules of the game by
promulgating the 1967 Republican Constitution and the resultant subsequent
move to the left. Through this un-debated constitution, traditional rulers like
Kabaka Mutesa II were deposed. This dictatorial constitution was not endorsed
by the population but by members of Parliament whose terms of office should
have ended that year.365
These rules of the game were an apparent attempt by Obote to regularize and
legitimize his seizure of power. However, the net effect of all this was to bring
the Ugandan army into Ugandas politics since whoever had total command of
the army took over power, albeit unconstitutionally. The army or military then
became the judge in civil or political matters.
The net effect of Obotes success after 1967 should not be viewed narrowly from
the angle that he had defeated Kabaka Mutesa II and abolished kingdoms in
Uganda, but rather that he had, by so doing, precisely undermined the politico365
A.B.K, Kasozi, The Social Origins of Violence in Uganda, 60.
144
civilian institutions; something that he so badly needed to do in order to

legitimize his coup.
By weakening such institutions as Parliament, the civil
society and the Constitution, he introduced and defined his own rules of the
game where the army came to occupy and play a central role as mediator in
civilian struggles. To show the priority given to Defence, by 1968, the Ministry
of Defence allocation was 10.2 percent of the national budget (in Kenya, it was
6.9 percent and in Tanzania 3.8 percent) or more than 17 million.366 This
reliance on the army, in turn, generated within the army as an institution, a
sense of political functional indispensability in post-independence politics in
Uganda. Leaders after Obote have not corrected this anomaly and this forms the
basis of disagreements and conflicts.
The rise to power of Idi Amin in 1971
exacerbated the situation.
Idi Amins period (1971-1979)

On 25th January 1971, Idi Amin and his troops seized power from Milton Obote
unconstitutionally, in a coup. Idi Amin was not a maverick intrusion upon the
Uganda political scene because he had been deeply and significantly entwined
in it before 1971. As Apollo Nsibambi has put it, he (Amin) was a product of
Ugandas political culture; his coming to power being directly linked to the
social cleavages that have hindered Ugandas national integration, the failure of
Ugandas politicians to devise peaceful methods of conflict resolution, and above
all the greed of Ugandans to eat by controlling the state.367
366
367
M. Mamdani, Politics and Class Formation in Uganda, 290.

A. Nsibambi, Political Integration in Uganda: Problems and Prospects, in East African Journal (Feb. 1968), 31-
9.
145
In 1971 when Amin overthrew Obote, the political elite under Obote had very
little support outside its own ranks precisely because the only classes capable of
independent political organization, like the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat,
had been paralyzed.
As a result of Obotes reliance on the military for both
defence and advice, the petty bourgeosie and the proletariat had almost no role
to play in the day to-day administration of Uganda. He also instilled a state of
fear that no group could easily rise to challenge his policies or to offer Uganda
any meaningful advice. Uganda was largely a one man state at the time of the
Amin coup of 1971. Parliament, the political parties and other civilian
institutions as arenas for resolving political conflicts had long been relegated
into the background by Obote and other competing leaders.
The army,
therefore, remained strong because it had arms and disciplined organization.

Conscious of their weaknesses, other classes like the petty bourgeoisie, the
proletariat, and locals like the Baganda sought alliance with Amin and the
army.368
While justifying the coup of January 1971, Amin gave 18 points for his course of
action. He also announced on the radio that his would be a purely caretaker
administration.369 However, as it later turned out, Amin ruled Uganda for over
eight years. His aim while in power was not to implement a program or impose
an ideology or improve the lot of his people, but merely to have power and reap
its benefits. As Kasoozi noted, Amins greatest preoccupation was survival.370
He did this by physically eliminating his enemies in the army, the police, the
368
M. Mamdani, Imperialism and Fascism in Uganda (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1976), 42-43.
J. Mittelman, Out of Underdevelopment: Prospects for the Third World (Hampshire: Macmillan Press, 1988), 168.
370
A. B. Kasozi, The Social Origins of Violence in Uganda, 104.
369
146
prisons, and among civilians.

country during his rule.
His loomed large over any institution in the
This largely explains why any explanation of the
miserable performance of his regime focuses mostly on Amin, as an individual..
Immediately after Amins coup, as Hansen writes, Obote the individual became
identified with the Lango group and his regime with the Acholi as well.371
During the early years of his violent rule, Idi Amin extended terror into northern
Uganda when he ordered mass killings of Acholi army personnel as well as
execution of prominent Acholi individuals.372 As Hansen correctly put it, Had
the vengeance of the coup been directed at the government of Obote as a whole,
it would have had to be directed at people from almost every corner of
Uganda.373
Obote drew his ministers from West Nile, Lango, Acholi, Kigezi, Ankole,
Buganda, Bunyoro, Toro and elsewhere.374 Witch hunting of Acholi soldiers
continued to the different barracks in Uganda. In March 1971, more than thirty
Acholi and Langi soldiers were dynamited at Makindye Barracks. On 22nd July
1971, between 150 to 500 Acholi and Langi from Simba Battalion, Mbarara
were herded into trucks, taken to an isolated ranch and gunned down. Further
massacres of soldiers from these ethnic groups occurred at military barracks at
Masindi, Soroti and Kitgum.375
371
H. Holger, Ethnicity and Military Rule in Uganda, 92.

A.G.G. Ginyera-Pincywa, Northern Uganda in National Politics, 4. See also H. Holger, Ethnicity and Military
rule in Uganda, 104, and S.R. Karugire, Roots of Political Instability in Uganda, 77.
373
H. Holger, Ethnicity and Military rule in Uganda, 104.
374
A. Mazrui, Soldiers and Kinsmen in Uganda,117.
375
A.B.K. Kasozi, The Social Origins of Violence in Uganda, 1964-1985, 111.
372
147
The point to be made from the above is that post-independence leadership in

Uganda took revenge against members of other ethnic groups on account of the
fact that past leaders came from their areas/ethnic group instead of adopting
remedial steps to promote unity. The political formulae that Idi Amin adopted
made thousands of Acholi and Langi individuals flee the country to
neighbouring countries like Kenya and Tanzania from where they re-grouped
against his regime.
Secondly, such politics of revenge and indiscriminate extermination of tribes

just because past leaders came from those regions or tribes left a permanent
scar of hatred in Uganda. It is not surprising that after the fall of Idi Amin in
1979, West Nilers were to be stereotyped in the person of Idi Amin (himself a
Kakwa of that region). During Obotes second term in power (1980-85), soldiers
in the new army, including Acholi individuals, took revenge on people living in
the
West Nile
region.376
Consequently
those
ex-soldiers and
pro-Amin
individuals who escaped into Zaire (DRC) regrouped and launched attacks in
the West Nile region of Uganda.
This strengthens our earlier argument that
conflict in Uganda is largely because the leaders polarized the country for their
selfish political interests.
When Idi Amin seized power, one of the promises he made was to organize free
and fair elections which, according to him, civilian political leaders had failed to
do for the eight years they were in power. Amin was reported to have said:
376
J. Crisp, Uganda Refugees in Sudan and Zaire: The Problem of Repatriation, African Affairs, 85, 339 (1986),
163-180. See also A.B.K. Kasozi, The Social Origins of Violence in Uganda, 17.
148
The military must support a civilian government that has the

support of the people. Mine therefore will be a caretaker
administration after which free and fair elections will soon be
held.377
Amins viewpoint coincided with those of the silent majority in the country then.
Most supported Amin simply because of their hatred for Obote who had
exhibited a high propensity to monopolize political power in the country either
by the use of the army or through camouflage of his UPC party. Amins promise
did not materialize.
He instead introduced the famous Elders forum378 in
which he began to condemn politicians and political parties.379 Amin later

promulgated a Decree dissolving all elected District and Urban councils380. He
banned all political parties and proscribed political activities of any nature.
As it later turned out, Amin did what his predecessor had done by adopting a
political formula that suited his interests and that of the people he purported to
represent. He later declared that,
The military should remain in power for at least five years so
that the people may be educated to think in terms of Uganda
as a whole and to love and respect one another in the spirit of
brotherhood, unity and equality.381
The overall consequence of this declaration was that soldiers came to occupy
the most central place within the political system with a role that was pervasive;
embracing the entire spectrum of governmental functions, and going right down
to the grassroots level. Amin also suspended several significant sections of the
377
G. Ibingira, African Upheavals Since Independence (Boulder: West View Press, 1980), 75.
In every district, Idi Amin instructed his military attaches to identify prominent elders to constitute a kind of
consultative forum and to advise on local issues pertaining to their areas.
379
F. Bwengye, The Agony of Uganda: From Idi Amin to Obote, (London: Regency Press, 1985), 37.
380
For details see Decree 2 of 2nd Feb. 1971
381
See Uganda Argus, 21 Feb, 1971.
378
149
1967 Constitution, including Article, 3 and 63, through the issue of the Legal
Notice No. I of 1971.382 This basically meant that the constitution was no longer
supreme law and that it could be altered without reference to Parliament.383 It
also meant that Parliament was suspended until further notice. From then on,
Idi Amins government developed a profound faith in militarism as a formula for
achieving and maintaining state power. Militarism became the norm in Ugandan
politics and society. The regime had no respect for constitutionalism and the
rule of law. In legal theory, according to Barya, constitutionalism rests upon
the principle of limited government that is expressed in the doctrine of
separation of power.384
In Amins regime, however, the President himself
became the head of the land and also the sole lawmaker. Judicial scrutiny over
several aspects of the exercise of executive power was eliminated and quasijudicial powers were conferred to a number of military and para-military
institutions such as the Military Tribunal, the Economic Crimes Tribunal, the
State Research Bureau, the Military Police and the Armed Forces.385
During the eight years of his rule, the armed forces were absolved of any
misdemeanor in respect of anything done for the purpose of maintaining law
and order and public security in any part of Uganda from the time of the
military take over.386 Amins soldiers used this blanket protection to undertake
382
Masinde Aseka, Transformational Leadership in East Africa, 323.

Masinde Aseka, Transformational Leadership in East Africa, 323. See also Oloka-Onyango, Judicial Power and
Constitutionalism in Uganda( Kampala: CBR Publications, 1993), 30.
384
J.B. Barya, Popular Democracy and the Legitimacy of the Constitution. Some Reflections on Ugandas
Constitution Making Process (Kampala: CBR Publications, 1993), 3.
385
E, Masinde Aseka, Transformational Leadership in East Africa, 324
386
A. Mazrui & M. Tidy, Nationalism and New States in Africa, 172.
383
150
revenge killings in parts of Acholiland and Lango on the grounds that these
areas were Obote domains.
Amins use of force to sustain himself in power earned him many enemies both
within Uganda and abroad. As time went on, the regime faced great economic
and political hardships. To divert the attention of Ugandans from their plight,
Amin decided to invade the Kagera salient of Tanzania on October 28, 1978. The
Tanzanian government responded by invading Uganda.387 In 1979 Tanzanian
troops-assisted Ugandan exiles to fight Amin. In April 1979, Amins personalist
regime was brought to an end.
Amins regime had rested heavily on neo-
patrimonial ties in society to the detriment of other civil-political institutions.
A critical analysis of the Amin regime and leadership illustrates that it was a
one-man state where the leader acted contrary to the constitution.
He
promoted the ideology of militarism more than Obote had done by usurping the
powers of all civilian institutions like Parliament, civil society organizations, and
the judiciary. As Omara Otunnu rightly observes,
Militarism germinates, takes root and flourishes in society when the
military usurps power. Military coups acquire a tradition and bring about
a change in the power relations of the society by their impact on the
citizenry. Thus military coups and military rule legitimize violence and
sanction military means as a method in their general efforts to shift power
relations and in social relations.388
Indeed, the most enduring legacy of Idi Amins rule in Uganda may be
militarism, which his regime nurtured and bequeathed to the socio-political
387
A. W. Maiso, A History of Multiparty Democracy in Uganda, 1962-1983, (M.A Dissertation, History Dept,
Makerere University, 1994), 210.
388
A. Omara-Otunnu, The Dynamics of Conflict in Uganda, in Oliver Furley (Ed.), Conflict in Africa (London: I.B
Touris Publishers, 1995), 403.
151
system.389 The militarism during Idi Amins rule was perhaps best captured by
the grammar of power at the time: I can fight, therefore I must rule. Today in
Uganda, militarism has graduated that grammar into the NRA dictum,
according to Otunnu, I fought, therefore I must rule or I shall kill anybody
who plays about with my army.390 In essence such hard talk is not
reconciliatory but simply pushes ex-soldiers and deposed politicians into
conflict as the only alternative.
Militarism, which has its roots in civil-military relations and the nature of the
state in colonialism, has now gained sanction and social currency in Uganda
and has terminally affected socio-political processes and economic activities in
the country.
In the period after Amins fall, the military came to dominate the political space
in Uganda at the expense of civilian institutions. For example, after political
differences arising out of, for instance, the rigging of elections or the unequal
distribution of political posts in the cabinet or other central government organs,
the military option became the first rather than the last resort. Political leaders
with strong support within the military quickly resorted to the option, leading to
conflicts in parts of Uganda.
389
A. Omara-Otunnu, The Dynamics of Conflict in Uganda, Chapters 8-14.

A. Omara-Otunnu, The Dynamics of Conflict in Uganda, 403.
390
152
Weak leadership and political chaos in Uganda, 1979-1985

After the fall of Idi Amin in April 1979, it was hoped that Ugandans would
realize that the countrys problems were mainly due to political disorganization
and especially inept leadership. It was hoped that Ugandans would strive to
build viable political institutions with mechanisms to resolve conflicts
peacefully. This, however, was not to be. Ugandans then discovered that it was
easier to overthrow a bad government and leader than to create a good one.
Post-Idi Amin leaders adopted a winner takes all type of politics and struggle
that plunged Uganda into a 5 year civil war between 1981 and 1985.
In March 1979, the Uganda National Liberation Front (UNLF), a coalition of

Ugandan exile groups, was created at the Moshi Conference convened under
Tanzanias auspices.
It set up a National Consultative Council (NCC), a
National Executive Council (NEC) and a Military Commission which took over
after the liberation in April 1979.391 The NCC had a daunting task to restore
political and economic stability and to establish new institutional arrangements
which would serve as the basis for a viable democratic system for the future.
The political situation in Uganda between April 1979, when Idi Amin was
overthrown, and 1986, when the National Resistance Movement of Yoweri
Museveni took charge, was largely chaotic. In this period alone, Ugandans were
subjected to the inept leadership of five presidents and separate governments.
These included Yusuf Lule, (68 days from April 15-June 21 1979), Lukongwa
391
E. A. Brett, Neutralising the Use of Force in Uganda: The Role of the Military in Politics, Journal of Modern
African Studies, 331, (1995), 129-152.
153
Binaisa (June 22 1979- May 1980), Paulo Muwanga (May 1980-Dec 1980),
Second Obote regime (10 Dec 1980- July 27 1985) and Tito-Okello Lutwa.392
These governments and the different leaders exhibited a number of weaknesses.

First, none of them had a firm hold on the police, the secret services, the army
or the prisons.
Lines of authority and power in both government and
paramilitary agencies were chaotic with the result, for example, that the soldiers
in the Binaisa, Obote and Okello governments often defied orders and behaved
unprofessionally throughout most of the period. As Museveni lamented, even
Amins soldiers had been unruly and undisciplined, but until 1977, he had
enforced brutal control over them and, in consequence, most of Uganda.393
Most of these governments were overly dependent on foreigners for political
survival.394
Moreover, none of the five governments that succeeded Idi Amin was elected by
the people of Uganda, and, hence, none had political legitimacy. Obote claimed
that he was voted into office in 1980 by the people, but in reality, he had
ascended to power on the whims of the army and the electoral commission put
in place by his henchman in UPC, Paulo Muwanga, then head of the Military
Commission.
392
Daily Monitor 9th April 2007. See also F. Bwengye, The Agony of Uganda, 37.
Onyango-Odongo, The Historical Memories of Armed Conflict in Uganda, (Kampala, Unpublished), 11-12.
394
A. B. K. Kasozi, The Social Origins of Violence in Uganda, 1964-1985, 123.
393
154
68 days of the Lule Leadership

The Moshi Conference held in Tanzania in April 1979 elected Professor Yusuf
Kironde Lule as chairman of the Uganda National Liberation Front and,
subsequently, first post-Amin President. However, after a mere 68 days, he was
violently removed from office.
On taking over the reins of rule, the new government was mired in political
intrigues, and ideological and constitutional wrangles. Like leaders before him,
Lule attempted to reorganize the army by implementing a quota system of
enlistment as recommended by his political adviser-Professor SemakulaKiwanuka. He recommended that the number of recruits from each ethnic
group should be proportionate to the numerical strength of that group in the
country as a whole.395
The aim was to enlist most of his Baganda tribesmen into the army as a way to
counter the Uganda Peoples Congress and the Acholi-Langi tribesmen of Obote
who then dominated the Liberation army.
Mamdani demonstrates that, like
Amin who organized a large-scale recruitment of the urban riff-raff into the
army, Lule behaved in more or less the same way, if not worse. In his
determination to eliminate supposed UPC threats, Lule also demoted Paulo
Muwanga by transferring him from the sensitive portfolio of internal affairs
Minister to Labour and Yoweri Museveni from Defence to that of Regional
395
G .W. Maiso, A History of Multiparty Democracy in Uganda, 217.
155
Cooperation.396 He then argued that the constitution gave him powers to do so

even without consulting the National Consultative Council. As he stated,
The constitution of a state is different from that of a party
which is in government, and clearly the Uganda National
Liberation Front (UNLF) is quite analogous to a party in this
regard. The former establishes the state, the organs of its
government and their respective functions; the latter
establishes the structure of the party (i.e. UNLF) and its goals
which its government must accomplish under the state
constitution.397
This became a source of conflict between President Lule and the National
Consultative Council. It also showed how Lule wanted to exploit loopholes in
the constitution to deepen the political directions of NCC.
Like Obote in the 1960s, Lule had tried to use constitutional provisions and to
manipulate the constitution to protect his interest. However, unlike Obote then
who had infiltrated the military and used it to protect his interest, Lule had not.
Worse still, in the National Consultative Council was the famous GANG of
FOUR that included Professors: Rugumayo, Dan Wadada Nubudere, Omwony
Ojok and Yash Tandon who were also interested in leading Uganda then. On
June 21 1979, Lule was removed from office after a vote of no-confidence by the
Uganda National Liberation Fronts (NCC) reportedly orchestrated by the gang
of four.398
Besides, there were the pro-Obote elements in the army and administration. As
J. Mulira put it, Obote was a factor in all the chaos between 1979 and 1985.
396
G .W. Maiso, A History of Multiparty Democracy in Uganda, 217.

Muyanda-Mutebi, Uganda Since the War of 1979 (Kampala, Unpulished), 27.
398
The Daily Monitor 9 October, 2007, See also interview with Dan Nabudere, 8/10/2007.
397
156
Obotes influence then was indirectly promoted by General Tito Okello, Chief of
Staff, David Oyite-Ojok and the over 5000 soldiers that Oyite had recruited from
the Langi, Acholi and Iteso communities in and around Kampala399. As Lule
later confessed in an interview, there were many pro-Obote elements in the
government that had been forced on me by Tanzania.400
As president, Lule failed to contend with the political forces in the post-Amin
era. He failed to divide those working against his interests or unite them into a
single force working for him. He even failed to exploit the bitter differences that
existed between the intellectuals such as the Gang of four and the Obote
elements. Instead, through his actions, he united them against himself.
As
Kasozi ably put it, Lule did not realize that it was the Uganda National
Liberation Front and not the Constitution that had put him in power.401
Lules fall helps to support this studys position stated earlier that conflict in
Uganda can squarely be blamed on the Ugandan political leadership and
especially its failure to work out basic political consensus on how to resolve
political differences short of physical force. It further illustrates how fragmented
the Uganda political elite was on political issues. Each group or leader in power
attempted to retain power at the expense of other groups. In most cases such
competing groups opted to operate outside the constitution, leading to conflict,
division and ethnic politics in the state.
The Baganda felt disillusioned and
demonstrated in Kampala streets calling for the immediate reinstatement of

399
Interview with J. Mulira on 8th October, 2007

A.B.K. Kasozi, The Social Origins of Violence in Uganda, 130.
401
400
157
Lule.
They also accused Obote and his Langi tribesmen and their Acholi
cousins of brewing trouble for Lule. Lwanga Lunyiigo, currently a Presidential

adviser to Yoweri Museveni, has even claimed elsewhere that Lule was removed
from power in 1979 mainly because of an attempt to shift the ethnic
composition of the army away from the northerners.402
The Baganda then resorted to clandestine activities against later governments.

This partly explains why the Baganda effectively supported Yoweri Museveni
during his five-year bush war against the second Obote regime between 1981
and 1985. The Baganda have, since the 1966 crisis, remained a strong force in
the center of Uganda that all political leaders have had either to manipulate to
rise to and keep power or ignore and have problems. As Ali Mazrui has written
of Ugandan politics, Uganda is an impossible country to govern effectively with
the support of the Baganda, but it is also impossible to govern effectively
without the support of the Baganda.403
Following the removal of Professor Lule, the post of President of Uganda fell
vacant and the National Consultative Council (NCC) immediately voted to fill
this post.
Three contestants emerged, that is, Godfrey Binaisa, Edward
Rugumayo, the then chairman of the NCC, and Paulo Muwanga, the then
Minister of Internal Affairs.
emerged as the winner.
Binaisa, a former Attorney General of Uganda,
He was elected chairman of the National Executive
402
P. Mutibwa, Uganda Since Independence: A Story of Unfulfilled Hopes, (London: Hurst & Company, 1992), 130.
A. Mazrui, The Social Origin of Ugandas Presidents: From King to Peasant Warrior, Canada Journal of
African Studies, 1 (1974), 3-23.
403
158
Committee of the UNLF and, subsequently, the President of the Republic of

Uganda.404
The Binaisa Regime (June 22, 1979-May 1980)

Godfrey Lukongwa Binaisa was not new to Ugandas turbulent history and
politics of manipulation. Born in 1920, Binaisa was first appointed Ugandas
Attorney General in 1962 and had been very instrumental in the formulation of
the Republic constitution of 1967.405
Under Binaisa, the UNLF organized elections to fill 60 vacant seats of the NCC,
reserved for people who had stayed in Uganda during Amins regime and who
did not attend the Moshi Conference.406 The army, which Lule had neglected,
would get 10 seats and women would get 9 elected members. The council
expanded from 30 to 127 delegates through a process that many considered as
favouring the Uganda Peoples Congress of Milton Obote.407
Unlike Lule, Godfrey Binaisa tried his best to contend with the political forces
that Lules regime had failed to contain/engage. However, he fell victim to the
conspiratorial methods of political behaviour so typical of Uganda by his
complicity in eliminating forces that would have protected him.
404
F. Bwengye, The Agony of Uganda, 41.

In an interview with Binaisa in 2007, he strongly believes that his role in formulating the 1967 constitution and its
details saved Uganda a lot of trouble. He does not regret doing it even when sections of the political elite have always
argued that this manipulation of the 1962 independence constitution and 1967 constitution are the real causes of
trouble in Uganda.
406
F. Bwengye, The Agony of Uganda, 41.
407
Interview with P. Mulira, 8th October, 2007.
405
159
In his bid to diffuse the political clout of the military in politics in the country,
he dismissed the Army Chief of Staff David Oyite Ojok without consulting the
Military Commission and appointed him Ugandas Ambassador to Algeria,
claiming that he wanted to improve discipline and to help build good public
relations between the army and the public at large. His main interest was to
eliminate the strong army chief, then the highest Langi in the army and Obotes
ardent supporter. He avoided consulting the Military Commission under Paulo
Muwanga partly because Muwanga had challenged him for the post of President
and also because Muwanga was Obotes henchman.408 His failure to heed the
demands of the Military Commission led to the Commission deposing him from
power.409 This was Ugandas first bloodless coup where Binaisas cabinet was
dissolved and the former President put under house arrest.
The Military
Commission then went ahead to arrange for General elections in 1980.410
The December 1980 elections organized by the Military Commission were

mainly a contest between the Uganda Peoples Congress (UPC) led by Obote and
the Democratic Party (DP) led by Paul Semwogerere. The other parties were the
Uganda Patriotic Movement (UPM) led by Yoweri Museveni and the Conservative
Party, a successor party to the Kabaka Yekka (KY), led by Joshua MayanjaNkangi.
The UPC was declared elected, but the result was disputed and
rejected by the Democratic Party and the UPM of Yoweri Museveni which had
managed to win only one seat to parliament. This was the main reason
advanced by Yoweri Museveni to start a five year bush war against the
408
Interview with P. Mulira, 8th October, 2007.

E. Masinde Aseka, Transformational Leadership in East Africa, 334.
410
409
160
government and leadership of Obote in 1981, proving that, as one political

commentator-Kintu Nyago stated in the Daily Monitor, the failure by a section
of the Ugandan political elite to channel their political demands and grievances
through the existing constitutional framework is the main source of conflict.411
This seems to be the case in the period 1981 to 1985 when Museveni started
and fought a bush war in Luwero (in Buganda) against Obote and led to the 20
year old conflict pitting different rebel groups in Acholiland against the
Museveni government and leadership in northern Uganda. In the period that
followed this election, Ugandan politics degenerated into open ethnic backed
conflicts.
The rebellion in the South that Obote faced, led by Y. Museveni and his NRA in
the Luwero triangle was paralleled by one in West Nile which was initiated by
members of the Former Uganda National Army (FUNA). Moyo and Arua areas
were identified with Amin and blamed by many Acholi for the massacres of
1971. In late 1980, FUNA invaded the district and occupied Arua. The UNLA,
mainly composed of Acholi troops, responded to this with widespread attacks on
civilians, leading to a guerilla war which drove hundreds of thousands across
the border, tied down some army units, and guaranteed further support for a
rebellion which could have been avoided with careful handling by Obote and his
subordinates.
According to Major General Emilio-Mondo, General Mustapha
Adrisi, Brigadier Killi, local people in Arua believed Obote, as an individual,
411
Daily Monitor 5, October 2007.
161
hated West Nilers.412
As evidence of his leadership weakness, Obote did not
visit such areas to dispel such propaganda and beliefs.
The second Obote regime (1980-1985)

In December 1980, Obote formed his second administration (the first having
been between 1962 and 1971). This was after the 1980 disputed elections in
which UPC and Obote claimed victory. Many groups in Uganda did not regard
these elections as having been free and fair at all. The elections were actually
won by the Democratic Party, which swept Buganda and Busoga with a
landslide.413
Talking about the election and its aftermath, Museveni, then the leader of the
opposition Uganda Patriotic Movement said:
it was clear that the UPC and Obote were heading for a
resounding defeat in spite of all the rigging they had done at
the earlier stage of registration of voters, nomination of
candidates and demarcation of electoral boundaries.414
This marked the beginning of difficult years for Ugandans. First, Museveni and
his Uganda Patriotic Movement rejected the outcome of the 1986 elections and
later began a guerilla war against the second Obote regime. In February, civil
war began. This war raged on for five years between February 1981 and 26
January 1986 when Yoweri Museveni and his National Resistance Army
stormed Kampala, the capital city and took over power. Violence characterized
412
Interview with retired Amin soldiers, Major. Gen. Emilio-Mondo and General Mustapha 20 October 2007 at
Arua.
413
E. Masinde-Aseka, Transformational Leadership in East Africa, 335
414
Amaza-Ondoga, Musevenis Long March from Guerilla to Statesman, 19.
162
the second Obote regime right from 1980 to his fall in 1985. The opposition
Obote faced was intense and sustained throughout his second tenure.415
Obote had thought that he could easily rely on the army and a divided ethnic
Uganda to keep power as he had done in his first tenure (1962-1971). However,
he was wrong. Resistance to the second Obote government began effectively
when the different fighting groups crystallized into formidable movements.416
The most significant movement remained the National Resistance Movement
under Yoweri Museveni. Others were the Uganda Freedom Movement (UFM) led
by Andrew Kayiira and The Uganda National Rescue Front (UNRF) in West Nile,
chaired by Brigadier Moses Ali (former member of the Uganda Army of Idi
Amin).417
Within the Uganda National liberation Front, an anti-dictatorship group was

also formed, led by the Gang of Four that was made up of Edward Rugumayo,
Dan Wadada Nabudere, Omwony-Ojok and Yash Tandon. Their strategy was not
to go to full-scale war but to resolve political differences through round table
conferences. They thought that the solution to Ugandas problems was
democracy and that democracy could only be achieved by all political groups
coming together as they had done at Moshi and planning a strategy418. Whereas
their aims were noble and suggested methods were good, they could not achieve
much in a country where the other political elite regarded the military option as
415
Interview with Godfrey Binaisa, 2007 January

A.B.K. Kasozi, The Social Origins of Violence in Uganda, 166
417
Harrell-Bond and Barbara E, Imposing Aid: Emergency Assistance to Refugees, (Oxford: University Press, 1986),
35
418
Interview with Nabudere-Mbale 10 September 2007.
416
163
the best solution to political problems.
Worse still, this group (UNLF-anti-
dictatorship) remained elitist and did not address itself to the role of peasants in
the political process.
They published hundreds of papers and booklets that
exposed the Obote regime, but that was all they did.419
Whereas they
contributed to the psychological warfare, they remained ineffective against a

regime and leadership that was used to the role of military force and military
solutions for even political problems.
Obote had come to power through the use of violence and set in motion a
program where the army remained the anchor of politics in Uganda. In 1985,
he was removed from power violently by his one-time loyal Generals, Tito Okello
and Bazilio Okello. Although these two soldiers administered the coup de
grace, their regime was rendered helpless by the other fighting movements.
The Okellos felt that they were tired of fighting for greedy political leaders. This
led to their mutiny in 1985 which ended in the coup against Obote.
The second Obote regime and its preoccupation with wars of resistance brought
about internal division between the two ethnic groups that had until then
dominated politics and the military in Uganda (i.e. the Acholi and Langi). The
Acholi in the army, fighting against Museveni and other rebel leaders, began to
complain that their deaths were disproportionately high and that only Langi
soldiers were being promoted. They were confirmed in their belief when Obote
419
A. B. K. Kasozi, The Social Origins of Violence in Uganda, 170.
164
by passed senior Acholi officers and chose a Langi, Smith Opon-Acak, as his
new Chief of Staff after the death of Oyite Ojok.420
Obotes cabinet was also divided between two principal factions. The first, led by
the President himself, consisted of young men in their early forties or late
thirties and included Chris Rwakasis, Peter Otai, Dr. Luwuliza Kirunda and
others. This group controlled the National Security Agency (NASA); a spy
network that had information on many people and organizations suspected of
being hostile to the UPC government. The other faction was led by Paulo
Muwanga, with the co-operation of many Acholi elite led by Otema Alimadi (the
Prime Minister and an Acholi) and General Tito Okello.421 This second faction,
largely constituted by Acholi, wanted to negotiate with rebel factions opposed to
Obote but were foiled by the Obote faction that believed in total warfare.
The political elite and leadership got seriously divided and this greatly assisted
the National Resistance Movement/Army of Museveni to advance against the
UNLA forces. Even at this stage, Obote still failed to realize that power never
belongs to an individual but to an organized group. Once his UPC group began
to disintegrate, Obotes powers weakened drastically. Worse still, the weakening
of the Acholi/Langi alliance meant that Obote could not hold on to power for
long. By June 1985, dissent in the ranks of Obotes army became public as
disagreements between General Tito Okello and Army Chief of Staff-Opon Acak
intensified. In the North, Bazilio Okello, an Acholi officer, began to mobilize his
420
421

Onyango Odongo, The Historical Memories of Armed Conflicts in Uganda 11.
165
forces after disobeying Obotes orders that he returns to Kampala. This was the
beginning of a mutiny that Obote could not resist. Acholi soldiers, who Obote
had relied on for long to keep power, turned guns against him, and on 27 July
1985, announced a coup against the Obote administration.422 General Tito
Okello was then proclaimed the Head of State. The Uganda National Liberation
Army (UNLA) became riddled with defection and desertions as hundreds of
members and sometimes whole formations left to join the National Resistance
Army (NRA) of Yoweri Museveni.423
Obotes second regime (1980-1985) was the greatest disservice to Ugandans.

Violence was always high throughout the regime and, unlike Idi Amin who had
managed to take control of the army even at periods of turbulence, Obote did
not. One may also argue that if Obote had allowed the democratic process to
run its course, the blood bath of 1981-1985 could have been avoided. However,
by thinking that he could force the population to accept him, he failed to
measure the limits of his political power. The opposition that Obote faced was
intense and sustained throughout his second tenure. He even failed to exploit
the North-South divide as he had done before and, instead, fell because of
North-North divide, involving the Acholi against the Langi. The downfall of
Milton Obote on 27 July 1985 did not lead to immediate peace in Uganda. It
instead exposed the fragmented nature of Ugandas political and military elite,
subsequently leading to more chaos and war.
422
423
E. Masinde Aseka, Transformational Leadership in East Africa, 337.

O. Amaza-Ondoga, Musevenis Long March from Guerilla to Statesman, 55.
166
By early 1984, Obotes position had become tenuous. He never had the support
of his overseas backers and the cost of the war had by then eliminated the
economic recovery initiated with the structural adjustment programme in 19811982. Officials and politicians received negligible incomes and many behaved
with complete cynicism. Services deteriorated further and corruption and the
black economy flourished.424 One would have expected that Ugandas political
and military elite would have quickly exploited this to overthrow Obote. This,
however, did not happen then and it was only when Obote fell out with his
Acholi officers that he lost power in a coup.
Obotes long stay in power up to 1985 was largely due to division and petty
squabbles among the elite especially between Yoweri Museveni and the Baganda
group led by Andrew Kayiira. Between 1981 and 1985, several secret meetings
were organized by the different opposition groups like Musevenis NRA, Kayiiras
UFM, and the Uganda Democratic Freedom Movement [FEDEMU] on how to
remove Obote, but none of them was successful. In July 1985 when Obote was
overthrown, Museveni was still preoccupied with his guerilla war in Luwero in
Buganda, while other rebel groups also operated within parts of Buganda but
with minor impact. All these forces and their activities gained momentum after
the internal division between the Acholi and Langi-dominated government had
brought Obotes rule to an end.
424
E A. Brett, Neutralising the Use of Force in Uganda: The Role of the Military in Politics, 129-152.
167
Tito Okellos leadership and continued conflict in Uganda

Tito Okello was the first and only president to hail from Acholiland since
independence in 1962. Before his rise to a leadership position in 1985, Tito
Okello served as Obotes top commander of the Uganda National Liberation
Army (UNLA). He later became head of State after overthrowing his long time
master Obote, with the assistance of Lt. General Bazilo Okello, also an Acholi.
In a country that was witnessing military coups in succession, General Tito

Okello attempted to insulate his regime from the vices of militarism. He tried to
achieve this by; among others, incorporating all the fighting factions into his
government.
He succeeded in wooing the remnants of the Uganda Freedom
Movement (UFM), especially those who had formed a new wing that basically
advocated for the restoration of the Kabaka of Buganda. This group was called
the Uganda Democratic Freedom Movement (FEDEMU). Besides, there was also
the Former Uganda National Army (FUNA). He called for an end to tribalism and
appointed Paulo Muwanga, a Muganda, as Prime Minister in an effort to woo
Buganda and forge a unity government.425
The main problem that the Okello government and leadership faced till its end
remained Yoweri Museveni and his National Resistance Army.
Even before
Obotes downfall, Museveni had foiled all attempts to resolve political problems
peacefully. He also frustrated the other forces like UFM and FEDEMU in their
bid to organize one front against Obote. In one such meeting in 1981 at
425
Okello appeared well-intentioned, only that he lacked the capacity and shrewdness to handle the problems of the
political elite then. He used very noble-Christian methods which people like Museveni just exploited to strengthen
their grounds and topple him.
168
Makindye to forge ways of ousting Obote, Museveni categorically stated that

any meeting with non-military combatants to discuss military issues was
useless because such people know nothing about armed political struggles. He
also later rejected the proposal for democratic control of the army on the
grounds that he already had a well-trained and organized fighting force, ready
to begin a liberation war against Obote and the UNLA.426 At that time, strong
disagreement between Yoweri Museveni and the other freedom fighters ruled out
any possibility of creating a democratic-united front in Uganda to fight for real
democracy or to solve issues democratically. Museveni insisted that he alone
should carry out the difficult task of removing Obote.
Musevenis negativity to Okellos call for dialogue meant that, once again, the
gun rather than the ballot would determine the political course of politics in
Uganda. Musevenis main argument was that there had been no fundamental
political change in Kampala. To join the Tito Okello regime would have been to
compromise the democratic principles for which his National Resistance Army
had fought for the previous five years.427
After persistent invitation to Museveni, Tito Okello later appealed to the

Government of Kenya under Arap Moi to organize peace talks with all other
political and military contenders as a way forward. This peace arrangement was
bound to fail because the political and military leaders then still viewed each
other with deep suspicion. In an interview with DRUM Magazine in Nairobi, in
426
Onyango-Odongo, The Historical Memories of Armed Conflicts in Uganda, 15.

A.B.K. Kasozi, The Social Origin of Violence in Uganda, 174.
427
169
1985, as the peace talks were underway, Museveni categorically stated that the
problem in Uganda is that the leadership has mainly been from the north. The
Acholi are everywhere: he said, in the army, big offices, etc. The southerners
(and Museveni is a Munyankole from the South) have played a peripheral role
since independence.428 This apparent negative attitude meant that, even if the
parties signed a peace agreement, which they did, Museveni would not respect
its terms unless he was president. He also set several demands to frustrate Tito
Okellos efforts. For instance, he demanded that a new military council be
formed where both Okello and Museveni would enjoy equal status and that the
national army of Uganda should comprise the following: 3700 soldiers (44%)
from General Okellos UNLA, 3600 soldiers (42%) from Musevenis NRA, and 12
soldiers from other groups.429 All this was accepted by Tito Okello as a way to
reach a peaceful agreement and avoid war in Uganda as the only alternative to
peace.
The two parties then signed the Nairobi Peace Accord (later called Peace Jokes
by Ugandan scholars like George Kanyaihamba, now High Court judge) on 17
December 1985. Museveni later wrote back to President Moi of Kenya that his
commanders had rejected the terms of the accord. The NRA also complained
that the Okello junta and its Military Council had not honoured the terms of
the agreement.430 The truth about who violated the truce is difficult to deduce.
However, all pointers indicate that Museveni felt strong enough to overran
Kampala with or without the agreement. He had realized that division within the
428
See Drum Magazine, 1985, 9.

Onyango -Odongo, The Historical Memories of Armed Conflict in Uganda, 16.
430
See W. Gazozo, Ugandas Statement, in AfricAsia, 25 (January 1986), 43-4.
429
170
UNLA made it possible for him then to overrun government forces. By so doing,
Museveni set a precedent where other political and military groups opposed to
his rule mistrusted him and also resorted to war as the only alternative. This
has contributed to failure of peace accords between Musevenis NRA and rebels
in Acholiland.
Musevenis Leadership
On 26 January 1986 Museveni and his National Resistance Army (NRA) drove
Okellos poorly organised UNLA out of Kampala.431 The UNLA then disintegrated
as Amins army had done. Whereas the NRA victory in Uganda remained quite
unique and unusual in Africa because it marked the first successful overthrow
of an indigenous government by a locally based guerilla movement, NRA victory
did not lead to total peace in the country. In Northern Uganda, the NRA victory
was greeted with guns.
As Brett, put it, victorious regimes are tempted to assert their authority by
punishing and humiliating the vanquished. Yet, coercion is an uncertain basis
for political authority, since violence creates potential enemies who will comply
only while they believe that resistance is impossible.432 This has been a major
failure of Ugandas post-colonial leaders, Museveni included. After his victory
over Okello, Musevenis major mistake lay in his failure to persuade the exUNLA forces and their leaders to lay down arms and integrate with his NRA.
Instead, there was a feeling that this was time for revenge for the Luwero
431
432
The Guardian, 27 Jan, 1986

E.A Brett, Neutralizing the Use of Force in Uganda, 145.
171
massacre and ethnic cleansing on the Acholi for their domination of politics in
Uganda. As one time Prime Minister of the Museveni regime, Kintu Musoke,
once stated: the Acholi have to pay for what they did in Luwero.433
Indeed, after Museveni captured Kampala in 1986, soldiers from the previous
government left the capital city and fled north and east of the country.
By
1987, tens of thousands of animals and other assets had been lost and normal
administration was suspended in the nine districts of Gulu, Kitgum (in Acholi),
Apac and Lira (in Lango), Soroti, Kumi (in Teso), Kotido, Moroto (in Karamoja)
and Palisa.434
Apart from the fact that these areas had been UPC strongholds,
the initial response and attitude of the NRM leadership towards the remnants of
the past regime, worsened an already difficult situation.
Musevenis troops that followed remnants of Obote and Okello soldiers allegedly
killed and raped and used other forms of physical abuse of non-combatants as
well when they reached Acholiland, which was foreign territory to them.435
People in the war-torn Acholiland also saw the new army loot their cattle as
revenge on all the Acholi for those few who had been party to the Obote and
Okello governments.436
433
The Monitor New Paper, 129, 1996.

Other resistances were in Kasese led by former Amin soldier-Amon Bazira who was also deputy minister under
Obote II.
435
R. Doom & Vlassenreoot, Konys Message: A New Koine? The Lords Resistance Army in Northern Uganda, in
African Affairs, (390) (1999), 98 5-36, See also Amii Omara-Otunnu, The Dynamics of Conflict in Uganda, 13
and M.L. Pirouet, Human Rights Issues in Musevenis Uganda in H. Holger Bernt & M. Twaddle (Eds.), Changing
Uganda: The Dilemmas of Structural Adjustment Programme, (London: James Currey, 1991), 16.
436
Interview with Ogenga-Latigo, 2007.
434
172
Conflict was greatest in Acholiland which had dominated the post-coup

government. Yet even here, Tim Allen claims that there was initially little
sympathy for the main rebel movement - the Uganda Peoples Democratic Army
(UPDA) among the Acholi population. However, the situation changed due to
weaknesses of Museveni and his leaders and commanders.
As Tim Allen
remarked,
Most of the soldiers were taunted for their failure and
castigated for their brutal actions in Luwero. (It was) killings
by the 35th Battalion of NRA in Kitgum District (Acholiland),
and a misguided government order for all ex-soldiers to report
to barracks that caused the situation to deteriorate.437
This kind of order to all ex-soldiers to report to barracks reminded the Acholi of
Amins orders in 1971.
In that year, Amin ordered the Acholi to report to
barracks and massacred them.
In pursuit of the unsuccessful radio order,
heavily armed NRA troops were dispatched to various parts of Acholiland to

hunt down ex-UNLA. Many ex-soldiers reacted to such orders by joining one or
the other of the several rebel movements that sprung up in Acholiland. This
shows how the weaknesses of Museveni and his army commanders laid ground
for conflict in Acholiland.
Early rebellion against the NRM in the Teso region was also partly because of
the weaknesses and arrogance of NRA leaders. The NRA was initially welcomed
in Teso, which had also been harassed by Acholi soldiers after the 1985 coup by
Tito Okello. According to some sources,438 the critical factor that precipitated
rebellion in the Teso area was the NRAs decision to disarm local militia
437
438
T. Allen, Understanding Alice: Ugandas Holy Spirit Movement in Context, Africa, 616, 3 (1991), 370-339.
Interview with Cuthbert Obwangor-Former Obote Minister 1962-1971 and respected elder.
173
previously set up by the Obote government to protect the inhabitants from

Karimojong cattle raiders and the failure by the NRA to intervene when the
Karimojong began raiding Teso area exclusively in 1986-87. Many believed that
NRA soldiers were also involved in rustling and were further alienated by
serious military abuse.439
In addition, in the immediate aftermath of the capture of power by the NRA,

there was a general anti-northerners sentiment in the country.
People from
northern Uganda were collectively labeled ANYANYA; a derogatory term to

imply that they (Acholi and Langi) are not Ugandans but southern Sudanese
who have no legitimate right to play a role in Ugandan national life. Thus,
Dennis Pain observed, with the NRA takeover, a new community witch hunt
burst out in which every Acholi was pointed out by children and adults as
Anyanya.440 The leaders did not help the situation either. President Museveni
worsened matters by referring to the past leaders as swine criminals or
brutes and the Acholi soldiers as Bacholi murderers.
All atrocities
committed in Luwero were allegedly by the Bacholi. 441
Instead of seeking reconciliation for the sake of peace, the NRA leaders
castigated the Acholi in general for the mistakes committed by politicians and a
few Acholi soldiers. Worse still, all killings believed to have been committed by
439
Michael Obalatum-a former UPA rebel in Kumi had been a teacher in Ngora until forced to flee into the bush by
threats of NRA. Interviewed 2007, Oct. 10
440
P. Dennis , Ethnicity in Small Town, Paper presented to East African Universities Social Science Council
Conference, Nairobi, Dec. 1972, 98
441
For long, President Museveni has referred to Bacholi and Langi as problems of Uganda. For more, see The
Monitor Newspaper 1987, 1990. Also the Presidents speeches in Y. K. Museveni, What are Africas Problems?
(Kampala: NRM Publications, 1992). He kept referring to past leaders like Obote, Tito Okello from the north as
criminals, swine (pigs). Such derogatory remarks were not reconciliatory. Bacholi is a collective local terminology
for all Acholi irrespective of whether they were soldiers or civilians or children.
174
the Acholi in Luwero during the wartime could not be proved.
This kind of
representation promoted hatred between the Baganda in Luwero and the Acholi
and also spread fear among the ex-soldiers. Most of them, therefore, went to the
bush to fight the NRA government.
The behaviour of the victorious NRA forces in Acholiland worsened the

situation.
NRA commanders in Acholiland acted brutally, thereby justifying
fears among the people there that it was time for revenge by southerners against
the northerners. Rebel suspects and alleged collaborators were randomly
arrested and openly mistreated. This made many ex-soldiers fear to surrender.
The significance of NRA atrocities was confirmed by Charles Alai, until 1998 a
Deputy Minister in the NRM government and former UPDA fighter, who claims
that he was beaten up as a suspect by the NRA at his home in Gulu, and had
no option but to join the Uganda Peoples Democratic Movement/Army (UPDA)
rebels because his life was threatened442. Andrew Adimola, a senior politician
from Gulu, also claims that Bazilio Okello would have come out of the bush in
1986 had Museveni not insisted that he should be charged as a criminal.443
The point to be made from the above is that, had there been persuasive and a
more sensitive handling of the political issue after the fall of Tito Okello, there is
a likelihood that the volatile political-military situation in Acholiland would have
been avoided or, at least, minimized.
442
443
However, the victorious political and
Interview on 13 October, 2007.

E.A. Brett, Neutralizing the Use of Military Force in Uganda, 146.
175
military leaders then wanted to assert their authority and humiliate the
vanquished. This led to conflict in this region that has persisted to-date.
Museveni and his commanders regarded their victory and revolution as a

fundamental change. President Museveni then wanted a military solution, not
only because he saw the different rebel groups as a military or even criminal
problem, but also because it would bring him and the National Resistance
Movement substantial political capital. As a result, Acholiland became a cradle
of different rebel movements. After the UPDA/M signed an agreement in late
1987, with the government, the Holy Spirit Movement under Alice Auma
Lakwena came up. Other groups that followed include the Salvation Army of
Severino Lukoya, and the Lords Resistance Army that still remains a problem in
the north to this date.
For long, Museveni and his commanders disregarded calls for peace talks to
resolve the conflicts in Acholiland. Once, Army Commander James Kazini
laughed off such a suggestion on the grounds that the Acholi are genetically a
war-like people who value war more than peace. As he said, If anything, it is
local Acholi soldiers causing problems.
people here; they are violent, its genetic.
Its the cultural background of the

444
NRM political leaders then regarded conflicts in the area as a local Acholi affair
and not an outcome of the countrys history and poor leadership. The war in
Acholiland since 1986 has not only been a disaster for Uganda, but it has also
444
Quoted in Human Rights Watch, The Scar of Death; Children Abducted by the Lords Resistance Army in
Uganda, (New York: Human Rights Watch, 1997).
176
allowed Museveni to maintain an unreformed and corrupt army as a key pillar

of his regime. It stands in the way of thorough security sector reform and gives
Museveni the arguments with which to resist mounting international pressure
to reduce defence spending drastically.
It also gives Museveni pretexts to
maintain the political status quo by denying the opposition a power base.
In conclusion, what can be said is that, since independence, post-colonial

leaders in Uganda identified three problems, namely, poverty, illiteracy and
disease as the true enemies of the people. However, none of them has seriously
made efforts to deal with these problems. Instead, post-colonial leaders have
made serious political and military mistakes that plunged the country into
unending conflicts. Since independence in 1962, and especially until 1986, the
topmost political office in Uganda has been in the hands of individuals without
political courage and who were not able to develop a political philosophy
acceptable to the majority of the Ugandan people. The problem has been that
the state has always been too closely identified with individuals and these
individuals have consistently failed to provide constructive and inspiring
leadership. This study contends, therefore, that Ugandas problem is neither
diverse ethnicity, its climate or soils or the fact that it was a colonial state, but
poor political leadership.
177

Colonial Acholi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colonial Acholi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colonial Acholi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main topic discussed in the document?

What is the main topic discussed in the document?

How did the British initially view the Acholi people?

How did the British initially view the Acholi people?

CHAPTER THREE

BRITISH IMPERIALISM IN ACHOLILAND 1890-1962

labour migration to the south was not enthusiastic. To British colonial

Worse still, their

decentralized and small scale political organization made them neither an

No tribe in Northern Uganda (Acholiland included) had an

A. D. Roberts, The Sub-Imperialism of the Baganda, 70.

The Period 1890-1910

J. O. Dwyer, The Acholi of Uganda: Adjustment to Imperialism, 36.

During his tenure as the leading Turko-Egyptian administrator in the

When he was forced to abandon

When Uganda was declared a British protectorate in 1894, these Sudanese

J. H. Speke, Journal of the Discovery of the Source of the Nile, 592.

brotherhood that had developed was abruptly destroyed by the Arab-inspired

R. S. Anywar, Acoli Kiker Megi (Kampala: Eagle Press, 1954), 11.

Moving Frontier of British Imperialism in Acholiland

According to J.P. Barber, the extension of British control across

J. O. Dwyer, The Acholi of Uganda: Adjustment to Imperialism, 58.

J. P. Barber, The Moving Frontier of British Imperialism, 41.

In 1882 the British immediately took control of Egypt, to the annoyance of

then put it in a letter to the Queen of England; The sovereign of Congo is a

Up to 1898, British administration in Uganda was confined to the four

Its people were left to fend for themselves.

This thinking later developed into British divide and rule

In July 1899, Sir Harry Johnstone went to Uganda as special Commissioner to

S. R. Karugire, A Political History of Uganda , 113-114.

He came to realize that northern Uganda was economically

Colonel Hayes Sadler was, henceforth, sent as the new commissioner to

instructions to Hayes Sadler stated that:

F. O. C.P 7867, Johnstone-Landowne, 107/1901.

In one of his correspondences, Sadler reported that the trade through

Entebbe Archives (E/A), 50/1906, Bell- Hesketh to Sadler, 13/9/1906.

There were no powerful local authorities through which we might

transmit our directions.228

It is interesting to note how firmly Bell was

committed to the Buganda model.

His concern for what came to be called

administration should be confined to a radius of 20 miles from the banks of the

Entebbe Achieves, Bell to Sadler, 13/9/1906.

Johnstone reported that the destruction of elephants was shocking232. In

S.R. Karugire, A Political History of Uganda, 114.

As F.A. Knowles, the

Provincial Commissioner of the Northern Province wrote:

J. B. Webster, & Onyango-Ku-Odong, The Peopling of Agago, 165.

Entebbe Archives, Doc. 106/1910, Provincial Commissioner to Governor, 27/3/1911.

Acholiland only became an area of importance

Kibuji) in 1909/1910.243 In 1910, J.C. Boyle, then acting Governor, reported

Map showing Districts

Source: A New Macmillan Social Studies Atlas, 1998.

Jacksons extension of administration covered a territorial block and not only a

administration in 1913 when Chua district, with its headquarters at Kitgum,

British Colonialism and Transformations in Acholiland: 1911-1962

The period 1910-1920

E/A 2364, Statement to Provincial Commissioner, 19/4/1913.

This included the problem of weak chiefs and tribes with no