By Andrew Irumba Katusabe
I continue to grieve with the Queen Mother, Best Kemigisa, the people of Tooro and the entire country over the loss of a giant in the history of our people. The death of King Oyo was a profound loss, one whose magnitude cannot easily be measured or replaced.
But as someone who has advocated for more than 34 years for fundamental change in the way Tooro’s affairs, public resources and administration are managed, I could not simply read the Queen Mother’s letter and move on.
When I read it last night, I immediately realised that the Queen Mother’s chapter in Tooro affairs may not yet be over.
In my view, what we are witnessing could be Phase Two of the return of the Queen Mother into the affairs of Tooro, this time anchored around the legacy of her late son, King Oyo.
And that is where I believe Tooro must be extremely careful.
The letter raises questions that cannot simply be wished away.
It reveals what, to me, looks like a snake with multiple heads. You may think you have dealt with one issue, only to discover that another has emerged, potentially creating an even bigger institutional challenge.
The most important part of the matter, in my view, is contained towards the end of the Queen Mother’s letter.
King Oyo, like the great Kings who came before him, was not simply a son of a particular family. He was King of Tooro.
His heritage, insignia, historical artefacts and everything associated with his reign formed part of the institution he represented and the history of the Tooro Kingdom.
That heritage should therefore be understood as belonging to the institution and the people of Tooro, rather than being treated as the property of a particular family.
Oyo inherited a history.
He learnt from the legacy, traditions and artefacts of the Kings who came before him. Those historical treasures were preserved so that successive generations could learn from them.
The question therefore is this: Are we now creating a precedent in which the legacy of a sitting King can be separated from the institution of the Kingdom he represented?
And more importantly, is this genuinely about preserving the legacy of King Oyo, or could it also create another network of influence and resources outside the established structures of Tooro Kingdom?
These are legitimate questions that the people of Tooro deserve to ask.
The proposed arrangement appears to create a structure around Oyo’s legacy involving the Queen Mother, her daughter, her husband and her grandson.
If such a structure develops independently from Tooro Kingdom, we could eventually find ourselves with two centres of influence and two channels through which resources connected to the legacy of a King of Tooro are mobilised.
Imagine a situation where the President receives two proposals for the same cause: one from Tooro Kingdom and another from a separate organisation established around the legacy of the late King.
Why should Tooro allow such a situation to emerge?
Every project, foundation, museum or initiative carrying the name and legacy of a King of Tooro should, in my view, strengthen the institution of Tooro Kingdom.
Let us develop OUR TOORO together.
Let the people benefit collectively.
Let the legacy of our Kings strengthen the institution they represented instead of becoming fragmented around individuals.
Queen Mother, Oyo was indeed your son.
But he was also King of Tooro.
A King belongs to an institution and to a people. The Kingdom is bigger than any individual family.
That is why I believe the historical artefacts associated with King Oyo and the Kings who came before him should remain part of the heritage of Tooro Kingdom.
If a museum is established in honour of Oyo, let it be a Kingdom museum, properly governed and preserved for the people of Tooro and future generations.
If Oyo had not found the history and artefacts of his ancestors preserved within the Kingdom, where would he have learnt about the Kings who came before him?
The history of Tooro’s Kings must remain accessible to the people of Tooro.
Not locked away in private hands.
STOP THE GREED, QUEEN MOTHER
I say this with respect, but also with the seriousness demanded by the moment.
After the loss of two of your children, what more can earthly wealth and influence ultimately mean?
What has life not already taught you?
At this stage, why hold more tightly to earthly possessions and influence than to the peace that comes from serving God and leaving behind a legacy that benefits generations?
I do not make these observations to diminish the grief of a mother.
I make them because the legacy of a King cannot be separated from the institution and people he served.
The financial networks, relationships and goodwill that supported initiatives associated with Tooro over the years were, in many cases, mobilised in the name of the Kingdom.
They should not now be allowed to evolve into a parallel structure that could weaken the very institution whose name helped mobilise that support.
You have said that you will always work for Tooro.
Then let us ensure that this commitment is reflected through established Kingdom structures.
Let every resource mobilised in the name of a King of Tooro strengthen Tooro Kingdom.
Let it benefit the people.
Let it educate our children.
Let it preserve our heritage.
Let it build institutions that will survive all of us.
AND TO BATEBE RUTH KOMUNTALE
I also have questions for Batebe Ruth Komuntale.
After all these years, what measurable institutional legacy has the office of Batebe created for the girl child of Tooro?
Beyond personal networks, ceremonies and traditional responsibilities, where is the long-term institutional programme empowering, educating and protecting the girl child?
What exactly are we teaching our daughters through the office of Batebe?
Is the role simply about preserving ancient rituals and practices?
Or should it also be about giving the girl child a meaningful future, dignity, education, opportunity and a voice?
These are questions worth answering.
Because Tooro cannot continue operating institutions simply because they have existed for generations.
Institutions must serve the people.
And if the same arrangements are now being proposed again, then my answer is simple: NO!
This is not simply another disagreement.
If handled poorly, it could open a fresh and potentially permanent confrontation around the institution at a time when the people of Tooro have only begun healing from the wounds of the past 34 years.
We cannot afford to return to the same cycle.
Tooro deserves one institution, one heritage and one collective future.
Not competing structures built around individuals.
King Oyo’s greatest legacy should not be the creation of another centre of power.
His greatest legacy should be a stronger Tooro.
And that is why, as I have done for more than three decades, I will continue to speak when others fear to speak.
I pledge to my King and to the people of Tooro to fight what I believe threatens the institution of Tooro Kingdom, with courage, truth and an iron fist.
I thank you. 🙏
Andrew Irumba Katusabe.
