June 2008 
Year 14    No.132
Global Minorities
Uganda


On the margins of life

Indigenous minorities in Uganda: How safe and empowered they feel

BY FREDERICK MUSISI KABUYE

1. Introduction

Uganda has made great progress in recent years from the perspective of poverty reduction. Absolute poverty fell steadily and significantly during the 1990s, from 56 per cent in 1992 to 44 per cent in 1997, to 35 per cent in 2000 and to 31.5 per cent in 2006. However, it remains indisputably high in rural areas (especially amongst ethnic minority groups).

A key characteristic of most ethnic minority groups is their dependence on traditional ancestral lands and natural resources for survival or way of life in symbiosis with their environment. Increasingly, they are being dispossessed of their lands. This trend was inevitably set into motion by a regime of dominating development paradigms favouring settled agriculture over other modes of production; establishment of national parks and conservation areas and large-scale commercial enterprises such as mining, logging, commercial plantations, oil exploration, dam construction, etc at the expense of their rights. It is important to understand that the demand for equality and non-discrimination involves not only the equal treatment of individuals and their protection from discrimination on account of their minority status but also such issues as recognition as citizens, freedom from domination by other groups and marginalisation from economic and social development.

Often ethnic minorities cut across the three classifications because they are socially marginalised groups and, as such, economically vulnerable as well, confined to low status livelihood activities that generate low and variable incomes and are often the weakest members of society because sources of vulnerability interact and reinforce each other. They are chronically poor without access to constructive governance systems.1 

2. Ethnic minority groups in Uganda

Uganda is a multi-ethnic state of 65 "indigenous" communities as per the third schedule of the Uganda Constitution as amended in 2005. While the 1995 Constitution had initially only recognised 56 communities as "indigenous", a recent amendment in 2005 added nine other communities to this list. Out of Uganda’s 65 legally recognised ethnic groups,2  11 groups3  constitute the population number 25,000-1,00,000 people while 19 groups4  constitute less than 25,000 people.

Table 1: Population of ethnic minority groups in Uganda of 25,000 people or less

No.    Ethic Group              Population                  %             Location

1.       Venoma                    119                         0.001         Kapchorwa, Arua and Kayunga dist.
2.       Nyangia                     332                        0.001         Kotido dist.
3.       Mvuba                        863                        0.004         Arua and Mukono dist.
4.       Mening                      1,092                     0.005         Kotido dist.
5.       Ethur                          2,342                     0.01           (?)
6.       Bahehe                     3,358                     0.01           Rukungiri and Busia dist.
7.       Batwa                        6,705                     0.03           Kasese, Bushenyi and Kabale dist.
8.       Ik (Teuso)                 8,497                     0.04           Kaabong dist.
9.       Basongora               10,153                   0.04           Kasese dist.
10.     Lendu                       11,155                   0.05           Masindi, Hoima and Nebbi dist.
11.     Banyabindi              13,912                   0.06           Mubende and Kasese dist.
12.     Babukusu                14,961                   0.06           Masindi and Bugiri dist.
13.     Chope                       20,517                  0.09           Masindi dist.
14.     Batuku                      20,532                   0.09           Bundibugyo dist.
15.     Banyala                    20,612                   0.09           Kamuli and Kayunga dist.
16.     So (Tepeth)             21,527                   0.09           Nakapiripirit dist. 17. Nubi 25,118 0.1 Luweero dist.

Source: Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2002

Table 2: Ethnic minorities listed in the third schedule of the Uganda Constitution as amended in February 2006 but not included in other national statistics: 1. Aliba; 2. Bagwe; 3. Banyabutumbi; 4. Batagwenda; 5. Gimara; 6. Napore; 7. Ngikutio; 8. Reli; 9. Shana; 10. Kuku.

Table 3: Ethnic minorities not listed as official tribes of Uganda under the third schedule of the Uganda Constitution as amended in February 2006: 1. Meru; 2. Basese; 3. Bagangaizi; 4. Bagaya; 5. Mwangwar; 6. Benet (Ndorobo).

3. How safe and empowered do indigenous minorities in Uganda feel?

Given their numbers and distribution, there is scant information about the indigenous minorities in Uganda and besides the Batwa, the rest of the groups have very little literature available about them. This in a way is the starting point of the marginalisation and oppression of the ethnic minorities and thus their vulnerability and disempowerment.

The Constitution of Uganda, Chapter 4, Section 35, recognises and protects the rights of minorities to participate in decision-making. It ensures the equal representation of marginalised groups and protects ethnic diversity and cultural rights. The Constitution also prescribes affirmative action in favour of marginalised groups and special interest groups. Despite this, no affirmative action has been taken to ensure the equal participation of ethnic minority groups in national policies and programmes. In addition, they are nowhere classified as vulnerable in Uganda’s national development framework. Instead, a lot of attention has focused on a set of conventional ‘vulnerable groups’, including orphans, people living with AIDS, people with disabilities, internally displaced persons, widows, children and the elderly, leaving ethnic minority groups on the margins and unattended to.

Uganda’s Constitution states that "minorities have a right to participate in decision-making processes and their views and interests shall be taken into account in the making of national plans and programmes."5  Despite the Uganda Constitution6  recognising rights of minority groups, the requisite legislative and regulatory framework is lacking to enforce their rights. Uganda has finalised the Social Development Sector Strategic Investment Plan which concludes that numerous social groups remained "marginalised or excluded from the benefits of development [and that for addressing this imbalance the plan would create]… an enabling environment for social protection and social transformation of communities while the vision is a better standard of living, equity and social cohesion."7  In pursuance of Article 32 of the Constitution, an Equal Opportunities Committee/Commission was established with the objective of ensuring that everyone has equal access to, participation in and enjoyment of benefits accruing from development programmes and services.

According to the ILO Convention No. 169, ethnic minorities have "the right to decide their own priorities for the process of development… and they shall participate in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of plans and programmes for national and regional development which may affect them directly."8  This right is frequently overlooked because of exclusion and discrimination. Despite the fact that Uganda has some of the most progressive policies related to poverty alleviation, ethnic minority groups have not been effectively involved, consulted and their issues and interests taken into account; they are still left behind in the development process. There is therefore imminent exclusion of the indigenous minorities as far as the national development framework is concerned.

Generally, the indigenous minorities are faced with the following constraints, as exemplified by the Batwa group,9  which characterise their way of life:

Ø No land; Batwa squat on non-Batwa land.

Ø They’re critically impoverished.

Ø Kisoro district local government is against any project for improving Batwa livelihoods, alleging that it would put them in higher positions than their counterparts who are also impoverished.

Ø Overdrinking amongst Batwa – men and women.

Ø Batwa are marred by conflicts and killings.

Ø Reintegration is not easy due to past history – the conflict between Batwa and non-Batwa communities (Bahutu) stemming from Rwanda.

Ø Some NGOs/CBOs (community-based organisations) have taken advantage of the Batwa hopelessness and turned donor funds into personal gains under the guise of ‘developing Batwa’. They also think they ‘own Batwa’ and should be the focal entry points into Batwa communities!

Poverty and other vices among ethnic minority groups

Uganda’s Participatory Poverty Assessment Project (UPPAP) has emphasised the multidimensional nature of poverty and vulnerability across different locations and social groups. Lack of basic commodities (consumption poverty) is one dimension but other self-reported aspects of living in poverty include: lack of productive assets; lack of social networks and informal support systems; ill health and illiteracy; powerlessness; lack of access to markets and community-level infrastructure; lack of productive employment opportunities (especially for the youth); vulnerability to shocks; and domestic problems such as alcoholism and domestic violence.10 

The problem of poverty and vulnerability in Uganda can also be analysed in terms of spatial and social aspects. The ‘social’ aspect refers to vulnerable groups while the ‘spatial’ refers to the geographical location. The two however are inseparable and highly affect ethnic minority groups because they remain isolated from the rest of Uganda’s dominant ethnic groups due to their poverty as well as their lack of access to information, education, health services, economic infrastructure and their low self-confidence in being able to take advantage of opportunities open to them.11 

For several decades Batwa have been segregated and marginalised by their neighbouring communities, particularly the Bakiga and Bafumbira. This often stems from resentment of their hunting and gathering practices, often perceived by other communities as backward and primitive. Some of their neighbours do not even wish to socialise with them and consider it abominable to eat or drink with them, marry their daughters or even sit on the same bench. Due to this segregation, the Batwa are often forced to live in isolation from their neighbours and collect water from different sources than those used by other communities. Others have concluded that this state of affairs has often led their children to abandon schools, citing discrimination in the form of bullying by pupils from other tribes.12 

Further, the general access to health care in rural areas is limited, as there is a severe lack of clinics or hospitals and those that do exist are understaffed and poorly equipped. The Batwa’s access to the limited health care facilities is further exacerbated by their marginalisation by the dominant communities. A medical need survey undertaken in 1999 observed that lack of safe drinking water, latrines, schools, clinics and access to government health care facilities were the major problems faced by the Batwa. For example, the child mortality rate for Batwa was 41 per cent while for non-Batwa it was 17 per cent and the infant mortality rate for Batwa was 21 per cent and for non-Batwa, five per cent.13 

The Batwa suffer injustices and discrimination in local council (LC) courts and there are numerous accounts of bias in adjudication of disputes between Batwa and other communities. As a result, many Batwa are discouraged from filing complaints in LC courts. The Batwa are also inhibited by the fees charged on filing complaints in these courts, which render access to the courts too expensive for them.

Godber Tumushabe et al, in ‘Living on the Margins of Life’, observe that despite the historically acrimonious relations between the Batwa and their neighbours, the surrounding communities are continuously influencing Batwa culture and language as a result of the interactions between the two groups. For example, the language of Batwa living in Kabale and Kisoro districts is increasingly becoming more of a mixture of Kinyarwanda and Congolese.14  This is due to the social relations between Batwa women and men of neighbouring communities, leading to children of mixed background. Increasingly, cases of defilement of Batwa girls by neighbouring communities are being reported,15  putting them at risk of HIV/AIDS. The explanation for these increasing cases of defilement is that there is a dominant belief among the neighbouring communities that when an HIV-infected man has sexual intercourse with a Mutwa (Batwa) woman, he is cured of HIV.16  In addition, while Batwa girls have relationships with non-Batwa men, the Batwa men cannot access non-Batwa women in other communities. As such, Batwa complain of lack of women to marry and possible extinction. Further still, non-Batwa men abandon the Batwa women following sexual affairs with them and many Batwa children do not know their fathers.17 

Exclusion

There is general exclusion of the indigenous minorities in Uganda as far as linguistics, economic and social services are concerned. In order to tackle the widespread poverty, the Government of Uganda launched the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) in 1997; this was subsequently revised in July 2004.18  Through the PEAP, the government’s overarching goal is to consolidate the economic gains, achieve rapid and sustainable economic growth and reduce poverty on the basis of detailed sector priorities and strategies designed. Poverty priority areas are selected and budget resources are mobilised for these priorities.

Uganda’s new PEAP aims at key strategic results in areas of increased GDP growth, reduced poverty and inequality and improved human development, structured around five pillars including: (i) Economic management (ii) Enhancing production, competitiveness and incomes (iii) Security conflict resolution and disaster management (iv) Good governance (v) Human development.

Ethnic minorities are often not accommodated by dominating development paradigms and in most cases they are victimised by mainstream development policies, policy analysts and policy thinking. Even the ‘consensual’ style of policymaking pursued by Uganda’s ministry of finance, planning and economic development through the UPPAP programme that has institutionalised direct consultations with the poor is yet to benefit ethnic minority groups.

Even the millennium development goals, set out by the UN in the late 1990s to benefit the poorest of the world in the interrelated areas of food security, health, water and sustainable development, focus on aggregate results and rapid development. Achieving the greatest good for the greatest number could mean that particular needs of the most excluded groups – of which minorities form a major part – will be ignored in the interests of meeting the targets on paper. In addition, the indicators of human development listed by the UN Development Programme are less likely to lead to improvement in life expectancy, adult literacy and children’s school enrolment amongst ethnic minorities, as these are issues that are easier to tackle in urbanising environments hence governments’ reports provide information without segregation to highlight the situation in areas where minorities reside.

There is no universally accepted definition of ethnic minority groups in Uganda; distinct ethnic groups are usually classified according to linguistic similarities.19  It has been emphasised in international legal frameworks that the first step towards legal protection of ethnic minority groups is to clearly identify and recognise the communities themselves. The Uganda Bureau of Statistics during the 2002 census classified ethnic minority groups on the basis of a demographic facet of or less than 25,000 persons in total in the whole of Uganda. It also emphasises that any group facing disempowerment, regardless of numerical size, should be considered a minority.20  It is pertinent and essential that any definition of ethnic minorities recognises their uniqueness and values vital for survival, equity and equality.

In the words of the World Bank’s legal adviser, ethnic minorities are recognised as: "a group of people who, because of their numbers, historical, physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination. Membership is objectively ascribed by society, based on an individual’s physical or behavioural characteristics; it is also subjectively applied by its members who may use their status as the basis of group identity or solidarity."21 

In the words of the International Labour Organisation, ethnic minority groups are considered to include groups who by: "self-definition as indigenous are distinctly different from other groups within a state; on a special attachment to and use of their traditional land whereby their ancestral land and territory has fundamental importance for their collective physical and cultural survival as peoples; [and] on an experience of subjugation, marginalisation, dispossession, exclusion or discrimination because these peoples have different cultures, ways of life or modes of production than the national hegemonic and dominant model."22

Failure to recognise the basic characteristics and standards in international legal instruments portrayed in the definitions above is partially responsible for the discrimination, isolation and exclusion of ethnic minority groups. Indeed in the words of the UN Subcommission Report on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 1986, it is asserted that there is little evidence that Uganda is committed to addressing the problems of its multiracial and multi-ethnic diverse population.

There is however no recognised minority status for any ethnic community in Uganda hence they are discriminated against. They are routinely the subject of criticism in the mass media for their backwardness and are blamed for constituting an obstacle to development. Discrimination is typically manifested23  as:

Ø negative stereotyping – for example, the "backwardness" of the minorities has been the subject of intense debate in Uganda’s mass media.

Ø denial of their rights – for example, rights to land and the right to represent and speak for themselves; and

Ø segregation – exclusion from the sphere of public action and decision-making. In all communities where minority people exist, there is an implied refusal to recognise them as people who deserve equal rights like others.

In spite of the Uganda Constitution having very progressive provisions in relation to the enjoyment of cultural rights, such as Article 37 which states that: "Every person has a right, as applicable, to belong to, enjoy, practise, profess, maintain and promote any culture, cultural institution, language, tradition, creed or religion in community with others", there is lack of progress in implementation. In practice, ethnic minority groups have either had to drop the use of their languages or let them be assimilated into the languages of the dominant groups as a way of escaping segregation and discrimination on linguistic grounds.

For example, "the Banyabindi in Kasese, they have changed names to access education or attend school, they have accepted to be absorbed into the culture of the Bakonzo in order to be able to access economic opportunities. For those that have acquired wealth, they disassociate themselves from fellow Banyabindi and change to fit into the culture of the Bakonzo; all this is done to escape exclusion."24 

In addition, "the Kasese district local government, in response to the ministry of education and National Curriculum Development Centre’s directive on language of instruction in lower level primary to be conducted in the students’ indigenous languages, passed a resolution providing for the teaching of only the Lukonzo language throughout the district despite the presence of other ethnic minority groups that have their own mother tongues (languages) within the district of Kasese."25 

Similarly, "the Banyala have been forced to abandon their identity and adopt Kiganda names in order not to be ridiculed at school and fit among other students. Even after school one must keep the Kiganda names for improved employment opportunities. Speaking the Lunyala is not encouraged in the schools, offices or business environment; the sanctity of the language is reserved for home. In other instances where marriage relations have been forged between Baganda and Banyala, the language preferred to be used in such a home is not Lunyala."26 

Among the Tepeth (So) on Mt Moroto, the threat of assimilation with the dominant Ngikaramojong language is very high just as witnessed with the Nyangia27  in the same area. Such processes deprive ethnic minority groups of the right to enjoy and pass on to their children their histories, language, traditions, modes of internal governance, spiritual practices and all else that makes them who they are. This denial leads to a general and gradual disintegration of culture.

For most ethnic minority groups it has become virtually impossible to participate in the economy of Uganda because their skills are not considered very "marketable" in society. While they are well versed in natural medicine and the ecosystem of their environment, they are ill-equipped to assert themselves in a society that rejects them because they are an ethnic minority. This rejection has left them without saving or investment capacity and thus weakened and isolated them. They are neither consumers nor manufacturers of high value-added goods and they are often geographically scattered in small communities. Their capacity to accumulate capital or develop cash surplus as disposable income or savings is negligible or extremely low. Consequently, with minimal economic weight or influence, they are effectively excluded from national economic life.

"Ninety-eight per cent of Batwa adults of working age living in South-west Uganda were reported to be unemployed in 2004. To survive, many Batwa work merely as casual labourers on the farms of neighbouring communities and receive as compensation only ‘the right to stay on the landlord’s property, cultivate a small piece of his land and [receive] hand-outs of food and old clothing’."28 

This situation not only highlights the failure to protect ethnic minorities’ rights to equitable conditions of work but it also presents evidence on the extreme and unchecked employment conditions that can only be considered as a situation akin to bonded labour or slavery. In addition, because of low education levels ethnic minority groups have low per capita incomes. What makes this more intricate is the fact that they are ignored by government in providing basic needs. Hence civil society organisations, which commit resources in their areas, are looked at as alternatives to governments.

For example, the Ik (Teuso) in Dodoth county in Kaabong district put across this realisation during an evaluation of the NKDP29  programme of Oxfam GB in Uganda: "the challenge is to put these (development) activities and plans into the hands of the Ik themselves so that they may become sustainable without the intervention of Oxfam or another NGO but solely through liaison with local government. The latter, to date, have paid "fact-finding" visits but have yet to commit themselves to the delivery of any kind of service (notwithstanding the recent security provided by the central government)."

Because they live in a virtually parallel state, disengaged from the political and economic life of a nation, socially subordinate, and often do not constitute a politically dominant plurality of the total population of a given society, it is difficult to see how their welfare and rights can improve without positive action being taken by governments to reverse such trends.

Losing land threatens the very survival of any ethnic group. Loss of land has impacted negatively on ethnic minorities’ cultures, denying them the right to maintain a livelihood of their choice. The manner of loss and dispossession that ethnic minority groups are subjected to is often heavy-handed eviction undertaken without informing or consulting them or offering them any reparation. The most recent in Uganda has been the eviction of Basongora pastoralists from their ancestral land gazetted as the Queen Elizabeth National Park. This has greatly exacerbated their poverty and has deprived them of an opportunity to develop alternative or additional means of livelihood.30 The Batwa have been similarly affected, as seen in the extract below:

"Batwa living in the Bwindi and Mgahinga forests of South-west Uganda were officially evicted in the 1960s but only finally excluded from using the forests in 1991 when they were gazetted as national parks. No compensation was provided for the displaced Batwa either in cash or as alternative lands. In Uganda, 44 per cent of Batwa do not even have land on which to build a hut31  and landless Batwa have nowhere left to go. They remain transient squatters constantly looking for somewhere they can lodge until they are moved on."

Non-consultation

One of the major problems facing ethnic minority groups is that often they have little or no consultations on or say in how or when measures which have or will have a direct effect on their lives are decided or put in place. International law recognises their right to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect them. For example, in South-west Uganda, "the Batwa were never consulted when national parks were created and in no way participated in the decision to create these conservation areas despite the fact that these decisions led to their eviction and exclusion from their ancestral lands without consulting or seeking their consent as required by international law."32 

Another example is the Benet (Ndorobo) on the slopes of Mt Elgon in eastern Uganda, "who have gone through a series of boundary demarcation exercises with the Uganda Wildlife Authority on the extent of the forest reserve vis-à-vis their ancestral lands without their consultation or consent. This has resulted in ambiguities as each boundary marking mission never conforms to any of the earlier boundaries established by earlier survey missions (1993, 1997, 2001, 2006), all this while extensions are made into the ancestral lands of the Benet."33 

In such processes, it is emphasised that the voices of ethnic minorities are often never heard or even availed of the opportunity to be heard. Yet when opportunity is availed of, ethnic minority groups have shown that consultative and consented to processes, especially those involving alienation or land and the requirement for relocation in the interest of national development, can be achieved without recourse to violence or evictions. The example here is that of the Batwa being resettled by ADRA (Adventist Development and Relief Agency) and the Uganda Wildlife Authority in Bundibugyo, in a process that is largely peaceful and smooth, one that is understood by the group involved because those charged with its implementation have taken the due process of consultation and consent into account.

Decentralisation in Uganda was developed in response to a situation where significant successes in economic growth and poverty reduction during the 1990s were accompanied by gross inequities in distribution and disparities in welfare. The potential for decentralisation to be efficient and equitable depends on the representativeness of local institutions. Currently there is citizen participation in the selection of representatives through periodic elections; with this there has been a relative increase in community involvement in the local government planning process.34  For many decentralisation was seen as an opportunity affording ethnic minorities the possibility of empowerment since the district is the key political unit with its own council of locally elected representatives and managing its own development plan and budget. The assumption is that the development needs of ethnic minority communities will be expressed through a highly participatory and demand-driven process mediated by the structure of local councils through discussions held right from the village level.35 

However, in reality, the contrary is happening: "it is also the icon of democracy of the majority and the dominant thus has consolidated the position of ethnic minorities in the rear in terms of resource allocation, priority determination, etc. Especially as one advances in the hierarchy of governance, the issues of ethnic minority groups, initially captured at the base (LC1, LC2 and LC3), evaporate by the time planning and resource allocation processes reach the apex (LC5). To cope, minority groups have to wait for election time and hoard the vote. This is temporarily effective but the spell is broken as soon as elections are concluded."36 

Instead of decentralisation bringing services closer to the people, it has in essence further marginalised ethnic minorities in such instances. It is interesting also to note what is going on in some districts with regard to cultural identity, given the very complex set of ethnic composition and heterogeneity in Uganda. For example, "the power of the districts to employ staff has bred what is locally known as the ‘son of the soil syndrome’. Within the workings of the district service commissions, the phenomenon has been for each district to employ people who regard a particular district as their native home. In such processes, ethnic minority groups are sidelined by the dominant groups to the extent that it can lead to more systematic and endemic exclusion of the few professionals from ethnic minority tribes who are lucky to have some education or skills training."

Gender and women’s rights

Amongst ethnic minority groups, the double marginalisation of the group as a whole (in terms of access to social services, education and health and absence of general infrastructure) is felt on a triple scale by women, whose ascribed position is subordinated to male, and does not lessen in any way the traditionally allocated roles and responsibilities of production and reproduction. The systematic gender inequality and exclusion from opportunities or ownership of resources is in essence amplified in occurrence and magnitude, often with little or no chance at all of being addressed. For example, "Among the Batwa, sexual exploitation of girls and women is exacerbated by the cultural superstitious belief that sex with a Mutwa woman cures backache whatever the cause of the backache. This has resulted in massive sexual abuse of young girls on grounds of seeking sexual curative abilities of the females in Batwa society."

4. Conclusion

The indigenous minorities in Uganda are generally insecure and highly threatened by low living standards. The above account clearly reflects their insecurity regarding long life due to ill health, HIV/AIDS due to sexual and gender abuse, peaceful and harmonious living with their neighbouring communities due to hostility and harassment, the vicious circle of poverty that engulfs their living conditions and exacerbates their marginalisation and disempowerment.

Because of the above situation there is disenfranchisement and powerlessness among the indigenous minorities to tackle the uphill challenges of life and this has led to many of them resorting to drunkenness, violence and taking the natural course of justice among themselves. n

(Frederick Musisi Kabuye is the chairman, Development Network of Indigenous Development Associations –DENIVA, Kampala; website: www.deniva.or.ug and executive director, Africa 2000 Network – Uganda; email: [email protected]; website: www.a2n.org.ug. Paper presented to the Global Minorities Meet, New Delhi, March 6-9, 2008.)

 

Notes

1 EU Civil Society Capacity Building Programme and Community Development Resource Network – CDRN Position Paper on Ethnic Minority Rights in Uganda, July 2007.
2 As listed in the Uganda Constitution as amended by February 15, 2006.
3 Jonam, Bagwe, Pokot, Babwisi, Bakenyi, Bagungu, Batagwenda, Baamba, Kuku, Kebu (Okebu), Nubi.
4 So (Tepeth), Banyara, Batuku, Chope, Babukusu, Banyabindi, Lendu, Basongora, Ik (Teuso), Batwa, Bahehe, Dodoth, Ethur, Mening, Jie, Mvuba, Nyangia, Napore, Vonoma.
5 The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995, Article 36.
6 Chapter 4, Articles 32 and 36, and Chapter 5 of the Constitution of Uganda.
7 Government of Uganda, the Social Development Sector Strategic Investment Plan (SDIP) 2003-2008: Integrating human progress with economic growth for sustainable development, Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, December 2003, p. iv (hereinafter "SDIP").
8 ILO Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries, June 27, 1989, Article 7.1.
9 The Batwa, according to Jerome Lewis, 2000, are an indigenous community believed to be the original inhabitants of the equatorial forests of the Great Lakes region of Central Africa.
10 Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED), 2000.
11 Jerome Lewis, ‘The Batwa Pygmies of the Great Lakes Region’, MRG, London, 2000, pp. 13-18.
12 Interview with Penninah Zanika during a field study in April 2005, ‘Living on the Margins of Life’.
13 Kristin Rudd, 2002, ‘Development and Primary Health Care in Underserved Populations: A Case Study of Work of Dr Scott and Carol Kellermann’.
14 EWM Kayeeye, 2004, ‘The Batwa of South-western Uganda and the African International Christian Ministry Intervention Programme’.
15 John Thawite, 2004, ‘Batwa King Back to School’, New Vision, August 31, 2004.
16 No medical evidence was found during the course of this study to affirm or dismiss this assertion.
17 Thawite, ibid.
18 The government made sure that research findings from various institutions were incorporated into the PEAP review process. Particularly important in this regard were materials from the Uganda Participatory Poverty Assessment Project of the MFPED. This participatory project was established to collect data and information from poor people regarding their own perceptions and definitions of poverty. Other research bodies such as the Makerere Institute of Social Research and the Economic Policy Research Centre were also involved.
19 Most Ugandans speak either Nilo-Saharan or Congo-Kordofanian languages. Nilo-Saharan languages are spoken across the North, further classified as Eastern Nilotic (formerly NiloHamitic), Western Nilotic, Central Sudanic.
20 Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2002.
21 World Bank Legal Department, April 8, 2005.
22 ILO, 2000, Manual on the ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989 (No. 169).
23 Jerome Lewis, ‘The Batwa Pygmies of the Great Lakes Region’, MRG, London, 2000, pp. 13-18.
24 Participant from Kasese in the CSO workshop for Discussion of the Draft Position Paper.
25 Participant from Kasese in the CSO workshop for Discussion of the Draft Position Paper.
26 Participant from Kayunga in the CSO workshop for Discussion of the Draft Position Paper.
27 Participant from KADP in the CSO workshop for Discussion of the Draft Position Paper.
28 ‘Living on the Margins: The Deprivation of Community-Based Property Rights of the Batwa Pygmies of South-western Uganda’, ACODE, 2005, p. 9.
29 North Karamoja Agro-pastoral Development Programme, reviewed by the author of this position paper, Margaret Rugadya.
30 New Vision, June 12, 2007.
31 United Organisation for Batwa Development in Uganda, Report about Batwa data, August 2004, p. 3.
32 A statement by a representative of the MBIFCT at the 5th World Park Congress in 2003.
33 Participant from Kapchorwa in the CSO workshop for Discussion of the Draft Position Paper.
34 Supplemental Report on the First Periodic Report of Uganda to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, State Party, 2006.
35 Ibid.
36 Consultant’s summary of the CSOs meeting in reaction to the Draft Position Paper.

 


[ Subscribe | Contact Us | Archives | Khoj | Aman ]
[ Letter to editor  ]

Copyrights © 2002, Sabrang Communications & Publishing Pvt. Ltd.