By Archiles Angelo Bwete 1
At first glance, to appreciate this treatise, one needs to comprehend the importance of a family in the general corpus of a country. A country is an abstract entity; the smallest unit in that entity is the family. An amalgamation of families forms a society, and an assemblage of societies forms a nation or country. Without strong and stable families, we have no viable country. With the breakup of the family, we have no meaningful country as well. It is families not schools, that discipline and raise children in one way or another. Families with disciplined and properly raised
children give to society and a country at large a population of good and law-abiding citizens. Comparatively, families with indisciplined and poorly raised children give to society and the country at large a population of criminals and troublesome citizens. For those who come from the villages know whose children terrorise the village with criminality.
Ugandan news portrays a crisis in the family institution. Recently, on Monday, the 15th day of December 2025, Ms. Rebecca Kukiriza alias Chosen Becky, celebrated her marriage with Mr. Ssekajja Abdul. The marriage was just like any other marriage, save that Rebecca Kukiriza, a mother of four children, most of whom were produced in her former union with Mr. Amiri Mutebi, and one kid from another union before Amir. At their reception, the bride and the groom paraded the four children presumed to be sired by Amiri Mutebi, carrying placards portraying, among others, that: “We have finally got a caring dad. We are the Ssekajjas”. This was revolutionary but not novel as worse things happen in Ugandan pairings. Plato argues that if men and women are to lead the same lives, the family must be abolished. In Plato’s time,
women were left behind, and today, women lead men at places of work and in some homes. If Plato came back today, he would review and rewrite a second edition of his book, The Republic. In this age, we have seen men depend on women for survival. Society is changing over the years, and dinosaurs may perhaps die off, provided they don’t moult like snakes.
Oftentimes, with breakups of relationships, marriages, or situationships that are blessed with children, they are actually affected in one way or another. Allan Jackson, in one of his great contributions to country music, a song entitled Here in the Real World. The song goes that,
Archiles Angelo Bwete, is a Ugandan lawyer, commissioner for oaths, notary public, legal practitioner, writer and scholar. He holds a Bachelor of Laws from Makerere University, Diploma in Legal Practice from Law Development Centre, Master of Laws from Makerere University and a Doctor of Law (LLD) candidate at the School of Law, Makerere University.
“But here in the real world, it’s not that easy at all ‘Cause when hearts get broken, it’s real tears that fall And darling, it’s sad but true, but the one thing I’ve learned from you Is how the boy don’t always get the girl.”
Allan Jackson here envisaged a situation involving only a boy and a girl, not their child or children. However, ku ground bilala nyo when kids are involved. Thus, girls or boys who are parents should pause a little and think like parents, owing to the fact that whatever decision they do take affects the children who are supposedly innocent. I hasten to add that it is not simply about Ms. Rebecca Kukiriza; it’s a social, legal, political and philosophical problem as increasingly children, at least not in age but in mental composition, are giving birth to children.
In a recent YouTube discussion on Divorce in Uganda: the Unspoken Pandemic, one discussant, Mr. Canary Mugume, posed a question that: “Is it me, or there is something wrong going on in Uganda with marriages? But every one, two, three people you speak to, their marriage is not working. The only difference is that some people choose to stay. It’s going to get worse. Growing up in the past, our mothers never walked away. Today you meet a 35-year-old who has been in three marriages. Marriage, while growing up, it was something to hold onto; it’s a social contract, with the relatives and the church. Marriages are going to deviate way further.”
Another panellist, Ms. Sheila Tumusiime, opined that, “… the elders I have talked to say we are not patient enough as a generation, there is social media we want to be like so and so.” The guest, divorce lawyer, Mr. Rushongoza Begumya, opined that, “7 out of 10 marriages in Uganda go down the drain, and that’s what is keeping us in business. All these lovely institutions tell us so much about the fact that we need to get married, but don’t tell us what we need to do in a marriage.”
Truthfully speaking, Canary, Sheila, and their lawyer Rushongoza did justice to this topic of divorce as a pandemic in Uganda. My able, learned brother, Rushongoza, points to the ignorance of the new entrants into marriage on what has to be done therein. To him, they learn to fight in the arena. To Sheila, social media is fundamental in the breakdown of these social relationships. This generation mainly seems to be nomadic in character; they quickly move from one person to
another. When will they stop moving?
I have argued elsewhere that the law is sometimes overrated to answer all societal problems. Unlike like philosophy, the law has gaps which my learned friends refer to as ambiguities or lacuna. These often tie the judge’s hands. To put this in context, we copied and pasted the English common law and altered English enactments, specifically their titles, without substantially altering the real provisions to fit into our rich cultural heritage. These were two distinct civilisations, imbued with different cultures, norms, and aspirations. Just like colonial rule was imposed on our ancestors by brute force as our people were suppressed into submission, they equally imposed their laws on Africans. In the case of Rex Vs Amkeyo, 7 E.A.L.R (1971), Chief Justice Sir Robert Hamilton, a British judge, held that, “I know no word that correctly describes customary marriage, ‘wife purchase’ is not altogether satisfactory, but it comes much nearer to the idea than that of ‘marriage’ as generally understood among civilised people.”
To this English judge, Africans were uncivilised people; whatever never tallied with the English culture or laws, as he knew it from England, was uncivilised and illegal under their standards of civilisation. This is the same law we adopted at independence and it is the same law that we still hold dear to this date.
Section 14 (2) (b) (i) of the Judicature Act saves common law and the doctrines of equity into Ugandan law. Arguably, the Judicature Act, being a substantive legislation, ranks common law and doctrines of equity above customs and usage under this hierarchy of laws. To comprehend this predicament, an overview of the Succession Act portrays that many of its provisions are foreign and colonial. Although it has notable amendments, the commencement date of the Succession Act remains 15 th February 1906, which was before Uganda came into existence.
Equally, the Marriage Act, Cap. 146, its commencement date is 1st April 1904, also before Uganda came into existence. Section 1 of the Succession Act, Cap 268, in effect provides that the provisions in this Act shall constitute the law of Uganda applicable to all cases of intestate or testamentary succession. These laws and many others are foreign and not homegrown. They import and enforce long English traditions and customs within our polity. This explains the case backlog, confusion and absurd results that oftentimes the law gives. Strictly speaking, this ‘foreign law’ will continue to evade addressing societal challenges and contradictions. This
speaks to the need for decolonisation of Ugandan law to enable the country address the real social, economic, philosophical, and political contradictions amongst our people. The conflict of cultures, English and general African cultures, has threatened the family institution, which is at risk of collapse in this Country.
Constitutionally speaking, much as Objective XXIV of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy saves cultural objectives that include cultural and customary values. This is mythical, as our cultural values are below common law and equity in the hierarchy of laws in this Republic. The imposition of the English Marriage Act and the English Succession Act, which commenced in 1904 and 1906, respectively, deflowered our rich cultural heritage that blossomed for thousands of years in this hemisphere of marriage, divorce and succession law. Culture is preserved by language, and this can be inferred from Objective XXIV (b), which
requires the State to encourage the development, preservation, and enrichment of all Ugandan languages. To comprehend a given culture in Uganda, one needs to comprehend its corresponding language.
In one of Uganda’s greatest hits of all time, ‘Olulimi Lwange’ by Prince Job Paul Kafeero, the song goes:
“Tuziika, twabya ennyimbe, twalula abaana
Twawula ebiggya, amasiiro ku malaalo
Tulina ebikka, emiziro n’obubbiro
Era tuboolagana wano okutangira ebivve
Eby’obuwangwa byonna tuli mu nsenso
Gwanga mujje egenda okwesibya abazzina
Emibala mu genda ogiyita embuttu
N’ezitukkunga embugga muzityabule muwogola
Anti mwe zoona mu ziyita engooma ezivuga!!
Olulimi y’empagi okwetooloolela ebintu ebyo
Gwemuyondo ogunyweza n’okuwunda endabika
Era y’ensanddaggo ekugira obuvo bw’ensenso
Munoonya kya bugaga ki ekisinga kino ekyatugemulirwa okuva mu ngalo za
mungu …” (bold emphasis added.)
This is the rich Luganda dialect, with no similar equivalent words in English language. In the Runyakore dialect, a man refers to his brother’s son as mutabani wangye or mutabani wa murumuna wangye, and that son refers to him as taata ento or shwento. However, the same man refers to his sister’s son as omwiihwa, and the son refers to him as marume. The English language refers to them without dialectical distinction as uncle and nephew. Thus, it eloquently points to the absurdity that the English language and culture entrenched in Uganda’s society, family and law. Thus, another rationale for decolonising these ‘foreign laws’ that are rich in English culture, which in effect distorted the African culture through their provisions. The ‘foreign law’ entrenched English culture into the lives of Africans. This has culminated in a
conflict of two distinct cultures, with the English culture taking precedence by virtue of the law in place. I vividly remember belabouring to make sense to my 60-year-old aunt that marriage is more than going to church with a white gown, veil and rings. Those who have raised us, we shall always be toddlers in their eyes. It is very unfortunate that my 60-year-old aunt’s mind is sadly a colonised mind.
Diagnostically, divorce, breakup of unions and migrations from person to person are complex phenomena. At the beginning of this treatise, I addressed the problem with the ‘foreign’ law as a cause of this confusion and pandemic of divorce and breakup of the family, and I won’t regurgitate.
To comprehend the quagmire in our midst today, of the divorce pandemic or fast nomadic movements from one relationship to another, there is a need to trace the origin of what we know as family. Morgan traces the prehistory of humanity as savagery, barbarism and civilisation. He further notes that at the primitive stage, when unrestricted sexual relations prevailed within the tribe, every woman belonged equally to every man and every man to every woman. Friedrich Engels states that the primitive history reveals conditions where men live in polygamy and their
wives in polyandry at the same time, and their children were therefore considered common to them all, and those conditions in their turn undergo a long series of changes before they finally end in monogamy. Engels further argues that monogamy developed with the overthrow of the mother’s right. He traced the origin of antagonism between polygyny and polyandry, which were two distinct polar opposites. Polygyny is a privilege of the wealthy and nobility, the women being recruited chiefly through purchase as slaves; the mass of people live in monogamy.
Engels asserts that monogamy is based on the supremacy of the man, the express purpose being to produce children of undisputed paternity. Such paternity is demanded because these children will later come into their father’s property as natural heirs. For the husband had a right to conjugal infidelity by custom, he kept slaves and concubines who produced men’s children that were citizens but not natural heirs as those remained the wife’s children. These developments in
human history depict a power struggle in the smallest unit of society between the wives and husbands pairing. Initially, most societies were matriarchies; however, after the defeat of matriarchy by patriarchy. Polyandry ended when men overthrew women in homes, and they submitted to the conquerors, and these are the human families we have today. Women’s activism started in the early 1950s, and the women’s movement came out to challenge the status quo of polygyny. The women’s movement demanded monogamy on the equality model with men, which explains the grounds of divorce in the marriage legislation in common law Africa. The
Women’s Movement, through activism, demanded polyandry, which is practised today by some ‘powerful’ women with societal approval.
These contradictions have increasingly resurrected the concealed power struggle between men and women pairings in society. Today, women are breadwinners, and most of them have more enormous financial muscles than their men. This explains the high divorce rates and migrations as the powerful women head towards polyandry as they pair with one single man or one after another or through the other. This conjugal infidelity was historically a preserve of the patriarch. Polyandry is increasingly back in society, powerful women are taking weak men as ‘wives’.
They alter sex mates at pleasure, produce children from multiple men, and these weaker men submit to these powerful women. Paternity in such sexual pairing is debatable and trivial, as maternity is paramount.
These polyandrous matriarchs mate with different men, and issues of paternity of the children is in doubt. Some conceal these truths to their deathbed, and others are proudly polyandrous. This has led to the boom of the DNA tests business in Uganda, as men attempt to solve the paternity of their presumed children.
Mr. Canary Mugume, it is not you; philosophy informs us that today the power struggle continues between men and women in their pairs in a home unit. Who wants to be that idiot to submit to the leadership of one man or woman, yet they can get their own man or woman who submits to them? Interestingly, be it a man or a woman, everyone wants to be king in their home, and everyone wants to be no subject but king. Among every two or more people, there must be a leader to give direction and vision. In the absence of a leader, in a given group, there can never be progression or stability. Willingness to obey religiously is key for the existence of
that given group. With rebellion to the established or presumed leadership, conflict is inevitable. The same principle applies to the family, where in every family, there is a leader who emerges for vision and direction. Today, the leader might be a matriarch or a patriarch, and this leader must exercise unquestionable authority. For the unit to stay solid and united as one, there must be total submission by the subordinate party and supremacy of the superior party.
Notably, among the 83 Judges of the High Court of Uganda, there is one leader, and that is the Principal Judge, the almighty Lady Justice Jane Frances Abodo, who has the vision and direction of the High Court. She is the only one who gives all these 83 Judges of the High Court vision and direction; failure to submit to this almighty Principal Judge would cost a Justice their Justiceship. Just like at work, there is a leader, and so is the home. The leader must be fully in charge; otherwise, where there are two centres of power, the family union is bound to collapse on
its weight. Being a cowboy, I know that in my kraal, Poseidon is the bull that leads, and no cow can stand in its way; he can eat from anywhere. He chases any cow from any spot, and sometimes he just chases them away as he passes them. This is why, among chickens under a free range system, weaker cocks go to far areas and leave strong cocks in juicy places with fertile hens. Here, nature is showing us that even among animals, there is a leader, and that leader is respected and obeyed. Potential competition is banished or lives in hiding. This is why animals fight, since in the animal kingdom might makes right.
Unlike in the animal kingdom, in other aspects of life other than war, humans fight in subtle ways through deceit, seduction, manipulation and other wise craft modes. Here, nature is teaching us that leadership is fought for. The victorious being becomes the leader, and the vanquished becomes the follower.
I hasten to add that, as we were children, we stayed in our parents’ or guardians; homes under their direction, vision, rule and leadership. But as we grow up and become men or women, it becomes uncomfortable to stay under another’s roof. You fly away and get your own roof, again, here nature is teaching us that as we become men or women of our own with the capacity to fend for ourselves, we eventually fly from our parents’ roofs. So submission to leadership is a choice a person takes, or circumstances at times force them to submit to any leadership.
I was told a story about heaven by my Late Grandmother when I was a boy. The story goes that Lucifer was one of God’s trusted angels in heaven, who, at one point, tried to overthrow his master, God. The story continues that God evicted Lucifer from heaven and created a world for him where there is ever-burning fire. That world is hell. Even the God we hold dear jealously guards his kingdom from usurpers like Lucifer. This is also a leadership lesson, emphasising that in every society there must be a leader who commands total obedience from his or her subordinates.
According to our family laws, to wit; the Marriage Act and Succession Act, we seem to have leaned towards English law and culture. In a nutshell, we decided to be English men and women by force of the law we have today. Strictly speaking, English law looks at the nuclear family and monogamy as the lawful and only form of marriage. Monogamy of the English civilisation was different from that of the Athenians, Jews, Egyptians and Greeks. The English one came much later, and their marriages never worked really well, unlike those of the Greeks, Jews, Egyptians
and Athenians. In English marital law, divorce was rampant since men had no concubines, and men would go through divorce to share sexual relations with another man’s daughter or former wife. In this setting, women were protected by their fathers or brothers, if the fathers are dead then by brothers and by their husbands in case they were married. In this medieval English tradition, a woman belonged to a man, either a husband or father. The husband or father was the
head of the house, for instance House of Lannister. Here, Lannister was a family name, and a person would only indulge in sexual relations within the territory of marriage. Sex was never for pleasure but for procreation, and also the display of power dynamics. In medieval English nobles and Lords who often claimed the right to prima noctis in conquered territories. This was the right to the first night in case of a marriage by a person in a conquered territory or with subordinates of the Noble or Lord. Virginity then was a prerequisite for marriage, and the Nobles or Lords would have the right to be the first men to have sex with the virgin brides before the grooms. A family couldn’t risk presenting a bride who wasn’t a virgin or pure for the Lord or Noble; it would be tantamount to contempt, and was punishable.
Unlike the English, the Athenian, Jewish and Egyptian monogamy was buttressed by concubines and conquered beautiful young slaves who became part of the household of a man. The Wife gave birth to the natural heirs, and the wife would take care of the patriarch’s other wives or concubines. The right to concubines and young, beautiful slaves was preserved for the patriarch. Men went to war to conquer property, daughters and wives from weak communities. Divorce was unheard of in Athenian, Jewish and Egyptian families. Today, we have mainly embraced
English law and values. But not everyone: it is mainly people who went to school (abasooma) or the ones exposed to foreign culture who are having these challenges. The common person’s marriages or unions are governed by our original culture, and are generally working well. This omuntu wa wansi has no business with the family court, save in rare cases of administration of the estates of deceased relatives. In Africa, just like the Greeks and Athenians, polygyny was highly embraced. In our African culture, if an African man or woman traces their lineage, they will find that their grandfathers and great grandfathers practiced polygyny in open. Our history
informs us that men seldom hid their ‘wives’ like it is happening today. It is worsening today as weak men are also hiding their other children from their children. Yesterday, as I was bestowed upon the responsibility of Godfather to my second godson, Benedict Mutabazi Kalibbala. The clergy noted that among 57 children that were baptised, only 15 fathers were present for the baptism of their children. This is the mirror of society we have to change for better families and a strong country.
In the final analysis, until we decolonise Ugandan law to our own rich cultural African heritage, the law ought to be domesticated to neatly address our Africanness. Without addressing these software issues, we shall continue to face hardware problems like case backlog, breakup of families, confusion within the law, and scenarios where the law cannot help the citizens. In this limb, the science of law meets philosophy.
In summation, families or homes need strong leaders and obedient subordinates to ensure continuity and stability. Be it matriarchy or patriarchy, the titular heads must have unquestionable authority to steer direction and vision. Like in a school, there is a Director, Headmaster or Headmistress, Director of Studies, Matron or Warden, Class Monitor, Dorm Father or Mother. School is teaching us that in every group of people, there is a leader without whom anarchy ensues; there is no leadership vacuum entertained in any society or group of persons. In a home, there has to be a leader to steer the direction. You can’t have two centres of power in any group of people, including a family. Mistakes, errors and omissions which are found in this treatise are my own. I do not pledge that my opinion on what this treatise entails shall always and forever hold because of the wisdom that continues to come later.
For God and My Country
Archiles Angelo Bwete, Ugandan philosopher, legal scholar and practitioner
Dated the 27th December, in the year of our Lord Twenty-Twenty Five, the 63rd year of Uganda, and the 58th year of Uganda as a Republic.
