A House Divided: The Legal and Political Implications of the Parallel Kumam Cultural Institution

The Kumam community in Uganda is currently facing a historical rupture. A parallel cultural institution is being formed by independent groups who argue that the current leadership of Won Ateker has veered away from its constitutional and cultural mandate, delving into partisan politics at the expense of cultural unity and identity. This move is rapidly gaining traction, with hundreds already registered under the new structure and formal registration reportedly in advanced stages.

At the heart of the issue lies Article 246 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda, which provides for the establishment and functions of traditional or cultural leaders. The article explicitly states that such institutions must be non-partisan and operate solely within the realm of culture and tradition, free from political entanglement. Subsection (1)(d) states:

“A traditional or cultural leader shall not join or participate in partisan politics.”

The growing perception among sections of the Kumam that Won Ateker is being influenced and even used by current politically-aligned figures is seen by many as a direct violation of this constitutional provision. The current leadership, instead of uniting the Kumam through shared heritage, customs, and language, is now accused of political meddling, sowing division and marginalization.

This has sparked intense anger and disappointment within the community. Key actors in the new formation are positioning themselves as the custodians of an authentic, apolitical Kumam identity, aiming to restore cultural pride and institutional neutrality. Their goal is to establish a cultural institution that reflects the will of the people, not the influence of political elites.

The move has prompted calls for urgent government intervention. Some within the community are urging the Minister of Gender, Labour and Social Development, Hon. Betty Amongi, and the Attorney General to investigate the operations of the current structure and, if necessary, deregister it for contravening the Constitution. They argue that allowing such violations to persist undermines not only Kumam unity but also the broader integrity of Uganda’s constitutional order regarding cultural institutions.

Politically, this development is likely to have significant ramifications. It may divide the Kumam community, leading to two rival institutions vying for legitimacy and influence. More broadly, it exposes a recurring issue in Uganda’s cultural-political interface: the weaponization of cultural institutions by political actors for partisan ends, which erodes both their credibility and traditional authority.

In legal terms, the government may soon be forced to make a determination on the validity of parallel structures, especially where allegations of constitutional violations are substantiated. Legal experts suggest that any institution proven to be engaging in partisan politics can be deregistered, or leadership removed through lawful processes.

The formation of a parallel Kumam cultural institution, while controversial, reflects a deeper yearning among ordinary Kumam people to reclaim ownership of their cultural destiny. It is a reminder that cultural identity must never be subservient to political ambition, and that constitutional principles must prevail to preserve national harmony and traditional dignity.