BAKAMPA
BRIAN BARYAGUMA
MOBILE: +256753124713 &
+256772748300;
EMAIL: bakampasenior@gmail.com;
WEB ADDRESS: www.huntedthinker.blogspot.com;
Kampala, Uganda.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Monday,
13th April, 2026.
To:
1.
HE
the President of the Republic of Uganda,
Office
of the President, KAMPALA.
2.
Members
of Parliament,
Through:
The Right Honourable Speaker of
Parliament,
Parliament
of the Republic of Uganda, KAMPALA.
Dear
Fellow Citizens,
Re: Grave Concerns on
Government’s Steady Islamization of Our Country
“You can fool all the people some
of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the
people all the time,” Abraham Lincoln.
 |
| The letter was duly served upon the President and Members of Parliament, through the Speaker, as seen from the stamps duly acknowledging receipt of it. |
I write to you as your fellow Ugandan. It is said that you cannot heal something unless you are brave enough to say it out loud. On that note, let me say out aloud a potentially dangerous trend in Uganda i.e. the government’s steady Islamization of our country. Uganda is home to people of various religions: Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Traditionalists, among others – even atheists. The country is a secular state and in fact article 7 of our Constitution prohibits adoption of a state religion. Yet Government of Uganda is slowly but surely making our country an Islamic state through increasing imposition of Moslem-centered laws and policies, due to a combination of many factors such as political populism, Islamic pressure and utter official naivety!
It
is alarming and quite unfair that in this multi-religious country, the Islamic
religion is the only one privileged to have an officially sanctioned separate
and parallel system of existence. For instance, by government policy, only
Muslims are allowed to work and slaughter meat in abattoirs for distribution
and sale to the rest of the population; Muslims are the only ones lucky to have
the State and Government of Uganda committed to their religiously inclined grouping
(the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC)) while other religions belong to
theirs by themselves, paying their own expenses there, as Muslims’ fees in OIC are
paid for by all Ugandans; only Muslims have a banking system (Islamic banking)
known by their religion’s name and operating on its doctrines, enshrined in law;
and, by virtue of article 129 (1) (d) of the Constitution that among others provides
for establishment of qadhis courts, Muslims
are the only ones fortunate to have their religion, Islam, recognized and
guaranteed by the State of Uganda in the supreme law of the land. All
others are merely tolerated.
On this note,
I learnt recently from media reports that government re-tabled in Parliament the
Qadhis Courts
Bill
and the House is debating the Bill for passing into law. (See, for example, Absas Ssekyanzi Muluubya (Secretary General, Uganda
Muslim Supreme Council), “Qadhi Courts: A Necessary Step Toward Inclusive Justice in Uganda”, Uganda Radio Network (Saturday, 4th April,
2026). Accessed at https://ugandaradionetwork.com/s/qadhi-courts-a-necessary-step-toward-inclusive-justice-in-uganda/.)
In that report, Mr. Ssekyanzi makes several claims justifying the establishment
of separate courts for Muslims, which I wish to respond to and debunk in this
letter, with the view of convincing government and most importantly the people
of Uganda as a whole, through you gallant fellow citizens, to drop the idea of
setting up qadhis courts in Uganda
because they are uncalled for – totally and completely.
On Enriching Uganda’s Judicial
System
Uganda
Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC), through its Secretary General, Mr. Absas
Ssekyanzi Muluubya, argues that qadhis
courts are not a parallel judiciary, will remain firmly within Uganda’s
national legal framework, functioning as a specialized component addressing Muslims’
family and personal moral and spiritual obligations within secular Uganda having
a single national judiciary.
Dear
fellow Ugandans, this is a highly deceptive, sweet talking argument that masks
or hides the reality of the matter: that on the contrary, qadhis courts will undermine our country’s judicial system by creating
within it a sectarian avenue meant to benefit a particular segment of the
population (Muslims) and in the process drive an Islamic agenda in Uganda with
the force and legitimacy of judicial power and moreover using public/taxpayers’
money. Establishing qadhis courts for
Muslims is an expression of loss of confidence in the mainstream judiciary by
UMSC for wholly unknown reasons; and that only serves to corrode and weaken
Uganda’s judicial system, not enrich it.
Our
judiciary is enriched when we all gather together, subject ourselves to it and
serve it collectively, instead of cleverly seeking to create self-serving alternatives
that tear us apart from the rest of the people within the system. I have never
heard that Muslims are particularly disadvantaged in Uganda’s courts hence
justifying creation of specialized courts for them, as if an affirmative action
measure of sorts. So why seek to break away? This must be driven by ulterior
motives of Islamic separatism, dominance
and Muslim hegemony, by which Moslems historically tend to choose to live
separately from others (whom they fondly call kafirs), detached from and superior over them. This makes the whole
agenda of creating qadhis courts suspicious
and threatening to the wellbeing of Ugandans.
Concerning Respecting Uganda’s Religious
and Cultural Diversity
UMSC
says that qadhis courts respect the
country’s religious and cultural diversity, serving as specialized forums for
Muslim personal law, not a mechanism to impose Islamic law on non-Muslims.
But
this is another veiled deception. You do not respect religious and cultural
diversity by detaching yourself from other people to manifest your specialness
and superiority over them. Far from respecting our diversity as a country, creating
qadhis courts for Moslems will undermine
it diversity by further inflating Muslim
hegemony and flaming the embers of Islamic
separatism and dominance.
They
are trying to create employment and jobs solely for our Muslim brothers and
sisters (but mostly brothers) just like the case is with all the situations already
identified above at page 2, lines 24-31. Fellow Ugandans, is it not true that only
Muslims work in abattoirs? Can you also imagine a non-Moslem representing
Uganda in an OIC meeting where it is a State Party? How about Islamic banks: what
are the chances that non-Muslims compete favourably with Muslims for jobs there
– because, what do you know about Islamic jurisprudence and Moslem ways to ably
deliver in Islamic banking? By-the-way, closely related to this, I believe
Ugandans are well aware that it is next to impossible for a non-Muslim to win a
significant electoral seat like MP or LC 5/District Chairperson in an area
where Muslims are the majority if you are not a Moslem like them. Also,
Ugandans may well know that usually it is the practice for government to
appoint Muslims to work as RDCs or RCCs in places where Moslems are the
majority. Why? Because generally speaking Muslims don’t like being with
non-Muslims, except if they (non-Moslems) are beneath and subservient to them. Just
as food for thought, it should be noted that even the premier Islamic university
in our country, Islamic University in Uganda, as far as I know, has its own
laws and is not governed by laws that govern other universities here, further pointing
to Islamic separatism.
But,
just to be clear: creating employment opportunities is very good, but how you do it also matters. You do not
do so on public resources, while technically locking out other people. Perhaps it
can be argued that non-Muslims can also go and study Islamic teachings and thus
become able to compete favourably for jobs with Muslims: now, that is the
easiest, most subtle and quickest way to Islamize a society, ensuring
attainment of Islamic dominance and
Muslim hegemony. No wonder UMSC says that it has an Islamic Call University
College that has already launched a postgraduate program in Qadhi Court
Administration, preparing professionals to ensure qadhis courts operate responsibly once legislation is enacted. UMSC
institutions and programs will only serve the Islamic faith and not the nation.
Why do I think so? When I was young, I used to hear that Muslim countries have
given aid to Uganda, through the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council. This was unlike
countries such as America, Japan or European Union states that gave to us
through Government of Uganda. It is a matter of common sense that aid passed
through UMSC is only accessed by Muslims, but aid passed through government is accessed
by all people since government serves everyone. So Islam has always been
self-centred in its dealings with us. By analogy, therefore, I doubt that UMSC trainings
will be any different from the tradition of Islamic donations.
About Embracing Alternative Dispute
Resolution to Ease Court Backlogs and Foster Community Harmony
UMSC
says that qadhis courts represent a
pragmatic solution rather than a threat in a nation increasingly embracing
alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to ease court backlogs and foster
community harmony.
To
say that creation of qadhis courts for
Muslims is an alternative dispute resolution measure for fostering community
harmony and decongesting courts by reducing or even eliminating case backlog, is
to bastardize the argument, to say the least. The formula for easing court backlogs
is simple: appoint more judicial officers, create more courtrooms and demand
efficiency from office bearers. As for fostering community harmony, alternative
dispute resolution does that by bringing people together, not splintering them.
Thus, for instance, local council courts are created to resolve local disputes
of everyone within their community; matoput
is introduced for all Acholis irrespective of their religious inclination; and so
on. What is noteworthy is that ADR mechanisms serve ALL PEOPLE within
their areas of operation, but not just a select few – and therein lies the
essence and meaning of community harmony.
Now
for qadhis courts, what cogent evidence
is there showing that their absence to adjudicate marriage, divorce,
inheritance and guardianship matters has led to disharmony among Muslims and
that creating them will restore harmony? Absolutely none. Perhaps what the
Muslim community needs is mediation
but not necessarily adjudication
which is what courts are fundamentally meant for.
But
Ugandans will recall that in the past Muslims vehemently opposed (including
organizing street protests) being subjected to the same marriage and divorce
laws with non-Moslems, demanding instead a special law of their own. Over the
years, as reason prevailed, that stiff opposition waned, but now UMSC is resurrecting
and fuelling it through this demand for special Moslem courts. Dear Ugandans,
the message to you is simple and it is a kick in the teeth: “okay, you can share the same law with us, BUT
WE WON’T SHARE THE SAME COURTROOMS WITH YOU IN IMPLEMENTING IT.” At the end
of the day, this achieves the grand idea of attaining Islamic separatism, dominance and Muslim hegemony.
On Fulfillment of a Constitutional
Promise Long Overdue
UMSC
says that creating qadhis courts is
not a radical innovation, but the fulfillment of a constitutional promise long
overdue.
It
is true the promise was made constitutionally 30 years ago; but with further
and better information, we now know that that promise was in fact made on a
deceptive, unpatriotic and ignorant premise of engendering Islamic separatism, dominance and Muslim hegemony throughout the
world and Uganda in particular. Most delegates in the Constituent Assembly were
non-Muslims and were most likely unaware of this Islamic agenda as they made
the Constitution.
There
is a saying that the law is an ass/donkey: whatever you put on it, it carries.
The promise of establishing qadhis
courts enshrined in article 129 (1) (d) of the Constitution is a very bad one
that should be rescinded, by Parliament deleting it (the promise) from our law
books. It should not be allowed to remain there.
About Qadhis Courts Functioning as
Traditional and Cultural Dispute Resolution Structures Already Recognized by
Law
UMSC
says that Uganda has long acknowledged the role of customary courts in
resolving disputes within specific communities and that extending that
principle to Muslims is simply a matter of fairness and inclusivity.
Dear
reader, fairness and inclusivity, as we know them within the context of customary
courts and such other avenues, entail serving ALL PEOPLE within
their area of operation without discrimination on account of religion or other
basis. To say that creating qadhis
courts for Muslims will promote fairness and inclusivity is to vulgarize the
discussion and mislead unsuspecting people. If we are to accept UMSC’s
perspective, we may as well have to create courts for each and every religion,
on public/taxpayers’ money. Further, we may have to also create specialized
courts for all sorts of different categories of people: women vis-à-vis men;
the short vis-à-vis the tall; the fat vis-à-vis the slim; the dark vis-à-vis light
ones; and so. Then there will be no end to this. Remember this is how the
demand for districts started and now the crave for them is totally crazy – and
soon may be the case with public universities. The need for fairness and
inclusivity should not be adulterated and watered down this far.
Uganda
is already a confident enough nation, unafraid of accommodating the beliefs of
its citizens. We have built (and continue to build) institutions that allow
communities to live according to their values while remaining united under one
national framework. One such institution and framework is the judiciary that serves
all the people of Uganda irrespective of their religious affiliation and which by
law is enjoined to take into account people’s beliefs, values, customs and
practices in adjudicating disputes. In Uganda, apparently it is only Islam and
our Muslim brothers and sisters that are uncomfortable being accommodated with
the rest of us under this common arrangement. J
For me I have never heard Muslims say that courts in Uganda as a matter of principle
refuse to resolve their disputes taking into account their Islamic beliefs.
On Other African Countries
Successfully Implementing Qadhis Courts
UMSC
says that other countries have successfully implemented similar systems of qadhis courts, singling out Kenya and Nigeria.
It premises its argument on alignment with a broader African tradition of
respecting diversity within unity.
But
fellow Ugandans, I believe you very well know that it is in precisely these
countries that we have seen a marked rise of hostility by Muslims against
non-Moslems especially Christians. In Kenya, Muslim terrorists would stop buses
on highways, order their fellow Moslems to separate themselves from non-Muslims
and then shoot to death the non-Muslims! In Nigeria, unlawful killings of
innocent Christians, burning churches by Muslims and judicially endorsed
executions of non-believers of Prophet Muhammad by Sharia courts is the order
of the day. Those are the countries that UMSC wants us to emulate in its quest
for deepening Islamic philosophy in Uganda. Wow. This surely is an insult to
our innate intelligence and slap in our faces.
The
people at UMSC must think that Ugandans are stupid people. When citizens are senselessly
and mercilessly killed by Islamists in the guise of upholding sharia law and
other Islamic teachings, then definitely secular governance and peaceful
coexistence are undermined and national identity fractured. Establishment of qadhis courts in Uganda will provide
further fertile ground for that and incidents like we saw recently in (was it?)
Yumbe District where an imam directed Muslim youths to attack and destroy places
selling pork and announced a ban on rearing pigs in the district. As Islamic
philosophy is entrenched in Uganda, such incidents will become more frequent in
even more places. Ugandans should watch out.
Concerning Family Disputes Often
Languishing for Years in Mainstream Courts
UMSC
argues that the benefits of qadhis
courts are both practical and principled, in the sense that family disputes
often languish for years in mainstream courts, draining families emotionally
and financially, yet qadhis courts,
through mediation rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, can resolve such cases more
efficiently, reducing the burden on conventional courts.
This
is the same as the issue on case backlog in courts; and as I said earlier at
page 6, lines 126-127, the solution to the problem lies in extending judicial
services closer to the people through appointing more judicial officers, establishing
more mainstream courts and ensuring efficiency of office bearers, but not creating
new innovations like qadhis courts.
The claim that mediation rooted in Islamic jurisprudence can resolve family
disputes more efficiently requires more sound, supported and convincing evidence,
not just sweeping assertions.
On Local Qadhis and Religious
Leaders Already Mediating Family Disputes across the Country Resolving Matters far
More Swiftly with Respected and Enforced Outcomes within the Muslim Community
UMSC
says that across Uganda, informal Islamic personal law mechanisms already
operate, that families who have waited months – or even years – for cases to
progress through mainstream courts often turn to community qadhis whose outcomes, though informal, are respected and enforced
within the Muslim community due to their grounding in faith. That therefore, legislation
is needed to bring transparency, accountability and professional standards to a
system already serving thousands relying on moral authority.
Well,
if this is true, then that is good and goes to support my view that qadhis courts are not at all needed on
the government and indeed country’s payroll. They are already working well for
Muslims and at their expense, so why involve the rest of us in their activities
and at our expense. To my mind, it is pretty much like the Church has its canon
laws that it uses to handle their religious affairs: we do not see them demanding
that government legislate and fund them. Disinterested parties like Moslems are
therefore not in any way involved in the Church’s affairs. So why should
Muslims be disingenuous and turn around seeking to involve disinterested
parties in their Islamic religious affairs? I think Church leaders should be on
the frontline of refusing creeping Islamic parasitism and resisting this Muslim-agitated
and government-led Islamization of our country through designs like qadhis courts.
Otherwise,
I think UMSC is lying and hiding the truth of the matter: if at all those
courts exist and people go to them, then it must be that their outcomes are not
respected and followed by the people. You see, Islamism is well known for its
inherent unfairness and imbalances and is actually contested and increasingly rejected
world over, including in its birthplace and stronghold, the Middle East. So, as
administrators, UMSC officials feel under-looked and even cheated after
spending a lot of time, money and energy in the process. The solution? Back,
reinforce and clothe their activities with the force of law and judicial power,
binding and enforced on those who mistake the mistake of resorting to them – no
turning back. J For us in
intellectual spaces, it is well known that Islam cannot thrive and exist long outside
the State. This is playing out now in Uganda through the quest for qadhis courts to formalize and legitimize
informal Islamic law mechanisms. In addition to creating employment exclusively
for Muslims, qadhis courts are a money
making scheme by UMSC officials from public coffers.
About Many Muslims Turning to
Community-Based Qadhis Courts Because Mainstream Courts are Costly and
Intimidating
UMSC
argues that mainstream courts are costly and intimidating and therefore many
Muslims turn to community-based dispute resolution in qadhis courts to access justice. Further, that this is not merely a
matter of convenience, but dignity and fairness for poorer families.
The
question of high costs, affordability and intimidation in court settings and the
need for dignity and fairness there is not unique to Muslims. By-the-way,
imagine, even in Britain where we get the bulk of our adversarial system,
intimidation in courtrooms is also a present issue. But as a country, we should
devise national and unifying solutions to such national challenges, instead of
retreating to sectarian machinations to overcome our otherwise collective
problems. So, since we agree that these problems face all Ugandans irrespective
of religion, does that mean we should set up specialized courts for every
religion? I do not think that is wise.
Your
Excellency, Honourable Members of Parliament and fellow Ugandans, in the final
analysis, I am of the considered view that establishing qadhis courts does not represent a meaningful and pragmatic
solution to solving problems in our country, particularly the judiciary. Contrary
to what UMSC says, they are a threat to our national harmony, stability and
progress.
The
mainstream courts are available to all citizens and Muslims have also used them
to resolve their disputes ever since our country was born. I have never heard them
say that they are specifically denied services and justice there. The problems Moslems
face (if at all) are the same problems faced by people of other religions. So,
why give them preferential treatment, if not for purposes of sheer Islamic separatism, dominance and Muslim hegemony
in our country?
The
Government of Uganda is creating in Uganda an apartheid state for Moslems. At
this rate, our Muslim brothers and sisters are soon demanding their own political
and administrative leaderships, exclusive amenities like roads, airports and
other public infrastructure – and judging from the look of things, this government
will grant them those demands. Very absurd! The people of Uganda should rise up,
in accordance with the law, in resistance to the steady Islamization of our
country in the name of inclusivity and cultural diversity, if government does
not listen and scrap this idea of operationalizing qadhis courts and altogether delete the provision of them in article
129 (1) (d) of the Constitution.
It
appears that inclusivity and diversity only make sense and apply when Muslims
are the ones on the receiving and benefitting end. If indeed UMSC is genuine in
what it is saying and truly respects Uganda’s religious and cultural diversity,
then let it, for example, open up and for starters allow non-Muslims to also
work in abattoirs and the meat distribution industry across the country. Minus
that, do not expect to continue easily fooling the people of Uganda anymore.
Yours
faithfully,
[signed]
Bakampa
Brian Baryaguma
Mobile: +256753124713 and +256772748300.
Email: bakampasenior@gmail.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment