KAMPALA — Journalist Andrew Mwenda has given his account of the events surrounding the succession to the Tooro throne following the death of Omukama Oyo Nyimba Kabamba Iguru Rukidi IV, defending his involvement in the process while raising questions over reports that the late king left behind a young son.
In an interview, Mwenda said he was closely related to the late king and that his family had longstanding ties to the Tooro royal household.
He said his involvement was informed by his dual position as a journalist and a stakeholder in the kingdom, but his account showed that he also played an active role in the succession discussions.
Mwenda said he contacted potential successors, organised meetings with Tooro elders, communicated with members of the Royal Succession Committee and briefed senior government and security officials following the king’s death.
At the centre of the controversy is the reported existence of a young son said to have been fathered by the late King Oyo.
Mwenda claimed that members of the Babito royal clan were not informed about the child during the king’s lifetime and that the child was introduced to the succession committee only after Oyo’s death.
He questioned why the child’s photograph, the identity of his mother and details of his maternal family had not been made available to members of the royal clan.
According to Mwenda, the child was presented as Jacob Oyo Amooti, although he alleged that different names had previously been used.
He called for a DNA test to establish whether the child is biologically related to the late king and claimed that the Queen Mother had declined such a test.
However, no documentary evidence of the alleged refusal was presented during the interview, and the Queen Mother’s position was not included in Mwenda’s account.
Mwenda further argued that even if DNA testing established that the child was biologically King Oyo’s son, that alone would not automatically settle the question of who should occupy the Tooro throne.
He said Tooro customs also require consideration of the mother’s clan, family background and circumstances surrounding the child’s birth.
Mwenda questioned why the alleged son had remained unknown to members of the Babito royal clan for about three years.
He also made a more serious allegation, claiming that the child could actually be the son of one of the Queen Mother’s nephews. Mwenda attributed the claim to an unnamed source within the family.
The allegation has not been independently verified and should not be treated as an established fact.
Succession committee
Mwenda said that following King Oyo’s death, more than 100 Babito princes and princesses met and appointed a 21-member Royal Succession Committee to oversee the process of identifying a successor.
According to his account, the committee considered four possible candidates.
Mwenda said George Desmond Kamurasi emerged as the leading candidate and that he personally contacted him in the United Kingdom, asking him to return to Uganda.
He said he subsequently facilitated meetings between George and Tooro elders as discussions over the succession continued.
Mwenda claimed that 18 members attended the committee’s final meeting and that 15 voted in favour of George.
However, George reportedly asked for more time to consult his family and business partners before accepting the responsibility. Mwenda said George was also concerned about the possible impact of becoming king on his British wife and children.
According to Mwenda, members of the committee believed they could not delay the process indefinitely because further delays could create opportunities for manipulation and influence-peddling.
The committee therefore moved to Edward Rukidi Kiijanangoma, whom Mwenda described as the second-most suitable candidate.
Questions remain, however, over how the transition from George to Edward was formally made.
The interview did not clearly establish whether another formal vote was held for Edward, how many committee members supported him or whether George had been given a specific deadline within which to make his decision.
Those details are significant because Mwenda described the committee’s decision as final, yet the preferred candidate had changed during the process.
The alleged 2022 will
Mwenda also discussed a document said to be the late King’s will, reportedly dated September 14, 2022.
According to his interpretation, the document did not establish that King Oyo already had a child at the time it was made. Instead, Mwenda said it provided that if the king died leaving a child, that child would become his heir, while also naming two cousins as alternative successors.
However, the interview did not independently establish the authenticity or legal status of the document.
It was also not clear whether the reference to an “heir” was specifically about succession to the Tooro throne, inheritance of the late king’s personal property, or both.
These questions could be significant in determining the relevance of the document to the succession dispute.
Mwenda denied that President Yoweri Museveni or Chief of Defence Forces selected the successor to the Tooro throne.
He said senior government officials were informed because the state had a responsibility to maintain security during the succession process.
However, Mwenda acknowledged that he briefed the CDF and advised that no announcement regarding the successor should be made before the President had been informed.
His account therefore raises questions about the extent of government involvement and whether the state’s role was strictly limited to security or extended into consultations surrounding the succession.
Mwenda repeatedly accused the Queen Mother and members of her family of withholding information and attempting to introduce an unverified child into the succession process.
Those claims remain allegations from Mwenda and were not independently established during the interview. The Queen Mother and other individuals implicated in the claims were not given an opportunity to respond in the account presented.
The controversy over the Tooro succession therefore remains centred on several unresolved issues, including the identity and paternity of the alleged child, the interpretation of the reported 2022 will, the authority and procedures of the Royal Succession Committee, and the extent of government involvement in the process.
