On 7th and 8th September, 2021, a mammoth two-day cultural festival was held at Bujora Sukuma cultural center, Magu District , in Mwanza Region. The final day of this festival was a special “royal” day, set aside for the official ‘ investiture’ of President Samia Suluhu Hassan, as the “Chief of all the chiefs” of Tanzania. President Samia was also given a new Sukuma title of “ Hangaya” (the shining star).
I and my wife Anna were among the large number of invitees; but we were granted the extra privilege of being allocated a reserved seat in the “Royal Box”, immediately behind President Samia’s ‘high table’.
For all intents and purposed, this was a “royal” event; in the sense that it was organized, and presided over, by Umoja wa Machifu Tanzania (UMT), in cooperation with the Ministry responsible for culture; and was attended by the Chiefs from all the Regions in Mainland Tanzania; plus many other invited guests from all the Regions surrounding Lake Victoria (Kanda ya Ziwa), including fifty “elders” representing each and every District in the whole of this Zone.
Bujora is a long established cultural center for the Wasukuma tribe. Thus, presumably because President Samia’s cultural investiture ceremony was held at this Sukuma historical location, all the proceedings were conducted in the Kisukuma language, with a helpful Kiswahili translation being mad, for the benefit of the non-Sukuma President, and the rest of us in that huge inter-tribal audience. It is presumably in order to obliterate this deceptive appearance of a Wasukuma cultural dominance, that President Samia, in her acceptance speech, directed that these annual festivals shall be rotated annually around all the regions of Mainland Tanzania.
But the main event speeches preceding the investiture ceremony were delivered in Kiswahili. The opening speech was delivered by the Umoja wa Machifu ‘s Executive Secretary, Chief Aaron Mikomangwa; whose main thrust was to ask for Government’s official recognition of their Union, plus infrastructure support for their various cultural activities. In her response, President Samia promised that her government will give active consideration to their requests.
For all intents and purposed, this was a “royal” event; in the sense that it was organized, and presided over, by Umoja wa Machifu Tanzania (UMT), in cooperation with the Ministry responsible for culture; and was attended by the Chiefs from all the Regions in Mainland Tanzania; plus many other invited guests from all the Regions surrounding Lake Victoria (Kanda ya Ziwa), including fifty “elders” representing each and every District in the whole of this Zone.
Bujora is a long established cultural center for the Wasukuma tribe. Thus, presumably because President Samia’s cultural investiture ceremony was held at this Sukuma historical location, all the proceedings were conducted in the Kisukuma language, with a helpful Kiswahili translation being mad, for the benefit of the non-Sukuma President, and the rest of us in that huge inter-tribal audience. It is presumably in order to obliterate this deceptive appearance of a Wasukuma cultural dominance, that President Samia, in her acceptance speech, directed that these annual festivals shall be rotated annually around all the regions of Mainland Tanzania.
But the main event speeches preceding the investiture ceremony were delivered in Kiswahili. The opening speech was delivered by the Umoja wa Machifu ‘s Executive Secretary, Chief Aaron Mikomangwa; whose main thrust was to ask for Government’s official recognition of their Union, plus infrastructure support for their various cultural activities. In her response, President Samia promised that her government will give active consideration to their requests.
That colourful event can fairly only be described as a huge success, which was professionally planned, and brilliantly executed, and totally befitting the installation of “Hangaya Mayo Chifu Samia Suluhu Hassan”, to the cultural throne of “Chifu wa Machifu” wote wa Tanzania.
In the light of all this ‘royal’ pomp and ceremony, and the contents of the speeches made thereat, one of the “elders” who was present there and a former Minister in the government of President Jakaya Kikwete; subsequently asked me, whether this was “a renaissance of the tribal Chiefs’ former influence in the management of the country’s affairs, which, for the sake of consolidating national unity, had effectively been brought to an end by the father of the nation, President Nyerere ?”
In the light of all this ‘royal’ pomp and ceremony, and the contents of the speeches made thereat, one of the “elders” who was present there and a former Minister in the government of President Jakaya Kikwete; subsequently asked me, whether this was “a renaissance of the tribal Chiefs’ former influence in the management of the country’s affairs, which, for the sake of consolidating national unity, had effectively been brought to an end by the father of the nation, President Nyerere ?”
He was making reference to the action taken by President Nyerere in the early 1960s, when he terminated the governmental role which was being played by the Chiefs in the country’s Administration during the colonial days. He then sought my ‘candid’ opinion on the matter.
I found sufficient time to sit down with him and go through my recollections of what happened in 1963; when the Tanganyika National Assembly passed a Government Bill to repeal the colonial “Chiefs’ Ordinance”.
But this private conversation gave me the idea, that there might be other people who have similar inquiries in their minds, and would therefore benefit from this information. And that is when I decided to make it the subject of today’s article.
The Chiefs’ positive role in the struggle for independence.
For the purpose of facilitating the reader’s proper appreciation of this story, a little background information would be helpful, in order to clear any misconceptions that President Nyerere might, perhaps, have had a personal dislike for the tribal Chiefs. That, is certainly not the case.
But this private conversation gave me the idea, that there might be other people who have similar inquiries in their minds, and would therefore benefit from this information. And that is when I decided to make it the subject of today’s article.
The Chiefs’ positive role in the struggle for independence.
For the purpose of facilitating the reader’s proper appreciation of this story, a little background information would be helpful, in order to clear any misconceptions that President Nyerere might, perhaps, have had a personal dislike for the tribal Chiefs. That, is certainly not the case.
In fact, Mwalimu Nyerere appears to have fully appreciated the positive contribution made by the Chiefs of Tanganyika in the political struggle for the country’s independence. For example, after the second round of the 1958/59 first general election in Tanganyika, the Governor, in his opening Address to the newly partially elected Legislative Council in March 1959, announced the colonial Administration’s proposals for Tanganyika’s constitutional advance thereafter, which included the establishment of a ‘Council of Ministers” of twelve Members, five of whom would be appointed from the newly elected members of the Legislative Council, consisting of three Africans, one European and one Asian. In the subsequent Council’s debate on the “Address in Reply” on 19th March, 1959; Mwalimu Nyerere made reference to the positive role of the Chiefs, in the following terms:- “We have one strong nationalist movement which is backed up by all tribes in the country, and backed up by the chiefs . . . Some people were doubting about this unity among our people and their Chefs, until a few days ago, when the Chiefs themselves had to put that in writing. Then the doubting Thomases said : it is true after all, the Chiefs and the people are united”.
Of Chiefs and tribes.
It is on record (see A Biography of Julius Nyerere, Volume 1, pages 14 – 16; Mkuki and Nyota Publishers, Dar es Salaam, 2020), that “the creation of “tribes” and the imposition of “chiefs”, was a form of social engineering imposed on the people, for the convenience of the colonizers”. And further that “as was with tribes, so too were their Chiefs, who were similarly constructed in some African communities . . . The organization under ‘chiefdoms’ was rare in most of Tanganyika. It is the Germans who first began to impose Chiefs where none had existed, by granting certain individuals powers over land and some decision making on community matters”.
“The British continued this practice of imposing Chiefs which was began by the Germans, in order to facilitate the implementation of their doctrine of “indirect rule”. “The Zanaki Chieftaincy was one of the many created by the colonizers. In a 1937 report in the Musoma District Book, the British colonial officer at the time, concedes that the tribes of that area had no Chiefs. There was not even the word ‘chief’ in their tribal languages. Chiefs had to be imported later from other areas”.
However, the institution of Chiefs in Ukerewe provides a different story. Oral history informs that the first Musilanga Chief, Omukama KATOBAHA, came to Ukerewe from Ihangiro, in Bukoba. He reigned over Ukerewe starting from 1635 to 1655; a very long time before the first colonialists came to this country.
It is on record (see A Biography of Julius Nyerere, Volume 1, pages 14 – 16; Mkuki and Nyota Publishers, Dar es Salaam, 2020), that “the creation of “tribes” and the imposition of “chiefs”, was a form of social engineering imposed on the people, for the convenience of the colonizers”. And further that “as was with tribes, so too were their Chiefs, who were similarly constructed in some African communities . . . The organization under ‘chiefdoms’ was rare in most of Tanganyika. It is the Germans who first began to impose Chiefs where none had existed, by granting certain individuals powers over land and some decision making on community matters”.
“The British continued this practice of imposing Chiefs which was began by the Germans, in order to facilitate the implementation of their doctrine of “indirect rule”. “The Zanaki Chieftaincy was one of the many created by the colonizers. In a 1937 report in the Musoma District Book, the British colonial officer at the time, concedes that the tribes of that area had no Chiefs. There was not even the word ‘chief’ in their tribal languages. Chiefs had to be imported later from other areas”.
However, the institution of Chiefs in Ukerewe provides a different story. Oral history informs that the first Musilanga Chief, Omukama KATOBAHA, came to Ukerewe from Ihangiro, in Bukoba. He reigned over Ukerewe starting from 1635 to 1655; a very long time before the first colonialists came to this country.
Omukama KATOBAHA was succeeded by a long list of other Wasilanga Chiefs: KASEZA (1635 – 1680); KATOBAHA II, (1680 – 1705; MIHIGO (1705 – 1730); KAHANA (1730 – 1755); MUMANZA (1755 – 1760); NAGO (1760 -1770); KAHANA II (1770 – 1780); MIHIGO II (1780 – 1820); KATOBAHA III (1820 – 1825); GOLITA (1825 – 1827; RUHINDA (1827 – 1828); IBANDA (1828 – 1855); MACHUNDA (1855 – 1869); LUKONGE (1869 – 1895); MUKAKA (1895 – 1907); RUHUMBIKA (1907 – 1938); LUKUMBUZYA (1938 – 1963) and the current KASEZA II (1982 – date).
These are the Wasilanga Chiefs who reigned over Ukerewe Chiefs successively, until the time when the Chiefs’ repeal Ordinance was enacted in 1963. But since the Chiefs’ repeal Ordinance did not abolish their traditional cultural status and functions, Ukerewe was able to install Lukumbuzya’s eldest son, Vianey Kaseza Katobaha, to the Wasilanga throne.
But the Musoma District Book continues as follows:- “The manufacture of tribalism and the ideology of tribalism in Africa, is an aspect which is often hidden in current historical accounts, which present those rigid tribal classifications as if they had always existed for all African people . . . However, the authority bestowed on the Chiefs enabling them to raise funds through collecting taxes and various other kinds of levy, provided plenty of room for augmenting their salaries through underhand methods .
“It has been suggested that the ‘lack of mourning’ for the passing away of the chieftaincy, demonstrates the tenuous hold that that institution had had on the social and political life of the nation”.
But Mwalimu Nyerere is also known to have given his full personal support and cooperation to his own Wazanaki tribal Chief, even after the abolition of the said Chiefs’ Ordinance. Thus, in view of such disclosures, he cannot be fairly suspected of having harboured any personal collective dislike for the Chiefs. Clearly therefore, there must have been other cogent reasons, which account for Nyerere’s action of repealing the colonial chiefs’ Ordinance, and also for the “lack of mourning at the passing away of Chieftaincy” quoted above. Some of these reasons are discussed in the paragraphs which follow below.
The background to the abolition of the colonial Chiefs’ Ordinance.
The background to that story, is that during the period immediately following the achievement of independence, Mwalimu Nyerere was faced with certain major tasks, all of which were absolutely monumental and daunting, both in their scope and coverage. These included:
These are the Wasilanga Chiefs who reigned over Ukerewe Chiefs successively, until the time when the Chiefs’ repeal Ordinance was enacted in 1963. But since the Chiefs’ repeal Ordinance did not abolish their traditional cultural status and functions, Ukerewe was able to install Lukumbuzya’s eldest son, Vianey Kaseza Katobaha, to the Wasilanga throne.
But the Musoma District Book continues as follows:- “The manufacture of tribalism and the ideology of tribalism in Africa, is an aspect which is often hidden in current historical accounts, which present those rigid tribal classifications as if they had always existed for all African people . . . However, the authority bestowed on the Chiefs enabling them to raise funds through collecting taxes and various other kinds of levy, provided plenty of room for augmenting their salaries through underhand methods .
“It has been suggested that the ‘lack of mourning’ for the passing away of the chieftaincy, demonstrates the tenuous hold that that institution had had on the social and political life of the nation”.
But Mwalimu Nyerere is also known to have given his full personal support and cooperation to his own Wazanaki tribal Chief, even after the abolition of the said Chiefs’ Ordinance. Thus, in view of such disclosures, he cannot be fairly suspected of having harboured any personal collective dislike for the Chiefs. Clearly therefore, there must have been other cogent reasons, which account for Nyerere’s action of repealing the colonial chiefs’ Ordinance, and also for the “lack of mourning at the passing away of Chieftaincy” quoted above. Some of these reasons are discussed in the paragraphs which follow below.
The background to the abolition of the colonial Chiefs’ Ordinance.
The background to that story, is that during the period immediately following the achievement of independence, Mwalimu Nyerere was faced with certain major tasks, all of which were absolutely monumental and daunting, both in their scope and coverage. These included:
(i) The dismantling of the legal and administrative governance structures that had been left behind by the colonial Administration; with priority being given to those structures that were obstructive to the achievement and sustenance of national unity;
(ii) The rapid establishment of new and appropriate replacement structures; a process involving the amendment, or repeal, of any undesirable colonial legislation;
(iii) The putting in place of appropriate new structures and policies.
All such matters required approval by the Legislature. And because I had just been appointed Clerk of the National Assembly, I became closely involved in all these processes. In most cases, the Government had to resort to the rule which permits the introduction of a government Bill in the National Assembly under “certificate of urgency”; in order to complete the dismantling process in the shortest possible time.
Among the pieces of legislation which were speedily dealt with, was the repeal of the said Chiefs’ Ordinance, simply because it presented a potential obstacle to the achievement of national unity. The others were the Land Tenure Ordinance, and the Magistrates’ Courts Ordinance, because of their repulsive racial discriminatory bias.
The Chiefs Ordinance was a hindrance to the achievement of national unity because it created multiple loyalties among the people of this new nation, with each tribe owing loyalty and allegiance to its own tribal Chief, plus regarding the other tribes virtually as ‘foreigners’; which was a very unhealthy situation for the achievement of national unity and loyalty to the national leadership.
T he legislative process for the passage of the Chiefs’ Abolition Bill also presented a kind of record, in the sense that, by prior arrangement, it was so fast-tracked that it received the requisite Presidential Assent on the same day of its adoption by the National Assembly.
The substance of the repeal statute.
The Chiefs’ Ordinance repeal statute, actually did not abolish the traditional cultural functions of Tanzania’s Chiefs. All that this statute did, was to remove from them only their Administrative powers (which allowed them to preside over their respective rural ‘Native Authority’ Councils); as well as their judicial powers (which had allowed them to function as Magistrates in what were known as Native Authority law Courts). But these were only in addition to their formal tribal cultural duties and functions.
However, in addition to the “elder” referred to above, who expressed his anxiety regarding the possibility of a “renaissance of tribalism” following on what transpired at the Bujora ‘investiture ceremony’; some more voices have also been heard expressing similar fears. That is a serious enough matter which prompted the CCM spokesman to issue a clarification, in a prepared public statement.
It thus appears necessary for me to emphasize the point, that the Chiefs’ abolition statute, did not abolish the traditional cultural functions of these Chiefs.
T he legislative process for the passage of the Chiefs’ Abolition Bill also presented a kind of record, in the sense that, by prior arrangement, it was so fast-tracked that it received the requisite Presidential Assent on the same day of its adoption by the National Assembly.
The substance of the repeal statute.
The Chiefs’ Ordinance repeal statute, actually did not abolish the traditional cultural functions of Tanzania’s Chiefs. All that this statute did, was to remove from them only their Administrative powers (which allowed them to preside over their respective rural ‘Native Authority’ Councils); as well as their judicial powers (which had allowed them to function as Magistrates in what were known as Native Authority law Courts). But these were only in addition to their formal tribal cultural duties and functions.
However, in addition to the “elder” referred to above, who expressed his anxiety regarding the possibility of a “renaissance of tribalism” following on what transpired at the Bujora ‘investiture ceremony’; some more voices have also been heard expressing similar fears. That is a serious enough matter which prompted the CCM spokesman to issue a clarification, in a prepared public statement.
It thus appears necessary for me to emphasize the point, that the Chiefs’ abolition statute, did not abolish the traditional cultural functions of these Chiefs.
However, in the case of my own Ukerewe District, as indeed was the case in many other areas, the institution of Chieftaincy was not imposed on the community by the colonialist like in some other areas. But that fact notwithstanding, even though the ‘royal drum” was, according to tradition, inherited by his eldest son upon Chief Michael Lukumbuzya’s death in 1982; the formal Kerebe cultural customs have largely disappeared from practice, as the Chief himself does not even live in Ukerewe. And this is what explains the conspicuous absence of the Chief of Ukerewe from the Bujora cultural festival.
piomsekwa@gmail.com /0754767576
piomsekwa@gmail.com /0754767576
Source: Daily News today.
No comments:
Post a Comment