The brewing standoff over Uganda’s proposed Coffee Bill, which includes scrapping the Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA), has fueled tensions between the government and leaders in the Buganda region, sparking significant debate around centralization, regional autonomy, and the economic future of Uganda’s coffee sector.
President Yoweri Museveni has been vocal in his justification for the proposal to dissolve UCDA, framing it within a broader government rationalization strategy aimed at reducing inefficiencies across numerous agencies. According to Museveni, agencies like UCDA, NAADS, and DDA were initially established to boost the economy when resources and pay scales were limited. Today, however, he argues that these entities have not fulfilled their objectives, especially in integrating all households into the money economy. He attributes Uganda’s recent agricultural successes to initiatives like Operation Wealth Creation (OWC) and the Parish Development Model (PDM), which have led to substantial increases in household participation in the economy, claiming that these successes demonstrate the redundancy of the specialized agencies.
Museveni’s statements underline a commitment to building a “broad-spectrum” economy, which he claims does not rely solely on traditional cash crops like coffee but rather a diverse set of crops and agricultural products. His proposal involves restructuring government support into a more streamlined framework within the ministries, eliminating what he terms as “parasitic” agencies that are overly costly and inefficient. Museveni has additionally expressed frustration with those opposing the UCDA’s dissolution, calling it an irrational stance driven by self-interest or, perhaps, by outside influences.
Buganda’s Response: Call for Devolution and Autonomy
Leaders from the Buganda region, however, have pushed back against the government’s plan, viewing it as an unwarranted threat to an industry critical to Uganda’s economy and livelihood. Katikkiro Charles Peter Mayiga, a prominent leader in Buganda, has voiced his opposition, highlighting the dependency of nearly two million Ugandan households on the coffee industry—a sector largely underpinned by Buganda’s farmers. According to Mayiga, dismantling UCDA appears as a punitive move against the Baganda, who contribute a significant share (nearly 50%) of Uganda’s coffee exports. He insists that initiatives like Buganda’s Emmwanyi Terimba, which encourage coffee cultivation, will continue regardless of the UCDA’s fate. “I urge Baganda (and other Ugandans) to continue growing coffee: your livelihood is more important than the motives of present-day politicians,” Mayiga emphasized
Adding to the voices from Buganda, Mathias Mpugga, former Leader of Opposition in Parliament, and MP from Masaka, the heart of Buganda’s coffee production, argued that the current “impasse over the proposal to scrap UCDA is a good justification” for restructuring Uganda’s governance framework. He suggests devolving power to regional governments, allowing provinces to prioritize resources based on local needs. “With devolved powers, each region/province would be directing resources to sectors that work for it,” Mpugga states on his X- account, echoing widespread sentiment in Buganda that local control would better serve the interests of Uganda’s largest coffee-producing region.
Broader Implications: Centralization vs. Regional Autonomy
The government’s proposal to centralize the regulatory oversight of the coffee sector brings into focus a broader debate on the structure of Uganda’s administration and the extent to which regions should have autonomy over their economic priorities. For many in Buganda, coffee is more than an agricultural product; it is a symbol of regional economic empowerment. This stance aligns with the Buganda Kingdom’s broader advocacy for decentralized governance, a system where regions have greater say over local development priorities.
The divide also reflects differing views on Uganda’s agricultural strategy. The government, on one hand, argues that moving away from specialized agencies to a centralized model will reduce duplication and allow for a more coordinated agricultural policy that benefits the entire country. On the other hand, Buganda leaders feel that this approach undermines a critical sector that has been thriving under UCDA’s specialized support and is crucial to Buganda’s economic stability.
The continuing debate over Uganda’s Coffee Bill has reignited longstanding demands from Buganda leaders for a regional or federal system. Buganda’s advocacy for federalism, or “federo,” dates back to the 1950s and early independence period, when the kingdom aimed to maintain autonomy within a federal arrangement. The goal was to allow Buganda and other regions greater self-determination, particularly in managing resources and local governance. These calls resurfaced prominently in the 1990s, when Buganda and other cultural institutions requested constitutional recognition for regional governments, which would empower them to direct resources and manage local affairs effectively.
In response, Uganda’s government introduced the regional tier system in the 2005 constitution, designed as a compromise for regions seeking autonomy. Although the regional tier allowed for localized control over cultural institutions, education, and certain infrastructure, it fell short of true federalism and was met with resistance from Buganda’s Lukiiko (parliament). Many Buganda leaders argued that the system diluted their aspirations for autonomy by leaving most powers centralized with the government in Kampala, leading to its rejection by Buganda’s leadership at the time
Now, amidst the debate over the proposed Coffee Bill and the potential dissolution of the UCDA, Buganda leaders are renewing their calls for devolved governance. Leaders argue that with a federal or regional system, regions like Buganda could independently oversee and manage vital sectors like coffee production. This would ensure that revenues and development efforts directly benefit local communities rather than being centrally controlled. Katikkiro Mayiga and others contend that decentralizing power could protect Buganda’s coffee farmers and other local industries from political shifts that may undermine their economic stability. This revived call for federalism underscores a persistent desire within Buganda for a governance model that aligns more closely with the interests of its people and local priorities.
