By Salaamu Musumba | PFF Vice President, Eastern Uganda | September 2, 2026

The unfolding royal succession debate in Tooro should not be viewed merely as a disagreement over culture, lineage and tradition. It raises a much bigger question: how far can the State go in influencing traditional institutions whose territories sit at the heart of Uganda’s strategic economic interests?

In Uganda’s political discourse, the term “deep state” is often used to describe powerful networks believed to operate around senior security officials, intelligence structures and influential political actors close to the centre of power.

Whether such a coordinated structure actually exists in the form often portrayed by critics is debatable. But whenever major political, economic and security interests collide with traditional leadership, suspicions of invisible hands inevitably emerge.

The current debate surrounding Tooro’s royal succession provides fertile ground for precisely such questions.

The Oil Factor Cannot Be Ignored

Tooro and neighbouring Bunyoro lie within western Uganda’s wider Albertine region, an area that has become increasingly important because of Uganda’s petroleum resources and associated infrastructure.

Oil changes the political and economic value of land.

It brings pipelines, roads, industrial developments, compensation disputes, environmental concerns, investors and enormous expectations from communities.

For the central government, therefore, stability in the oil-producing and neighbouring regions is not merely desirable. It is strategically important.

This raises an unavoidable question: would any government comfortably watch the emergence of an influential traditional leader capable of mobilising communities against major decisions involving land, natural resources or government policy?

That question does not prove interference. But it explains why a royal succession in such a strategically important region will inevitably attract political scrutiny.

Traditional Leaders Have No Executive Power, But They Have Influence

Uganda’s traditional and cultural leaders do not exercise partisan political authority under the constitutional order.

But anyone who understands Uganda knows that constitutional power and cultural influence are two different things.

A king may not command the army, collect national taxes or appoint ministers, but he can command enormous respect among his subjects.

His words can influence attitudes towards land, culture, identity, natural resources and development.

That makes cultural institutions politically significant even when their leaders are constitutionally prohibited from engaging in partisan politics.

It is therefore understandable that questions arise whenever the State appears unusually interested in what would ordinarily be an internal cultural process.

The State Versus Clan Question

The most sensitive issue is the apparent difference between positions associated with government actors and those emerging from sections of the Babiito royal clan regarding the succession process.

If one side advances a particular understanding of succession while the royal clan establishes its own mechanism to determine a successor, Ugandans are entitled to ask questions.

Who ultimately determines the king?

Is it government?

Is it the royal family?

Is it the relevant clan?

Or is it the established custom and tradition of the people of Tooro?

The State undoubtedly has legitimate responsibilities. It must maintain security, protect children, prevent violence and ensure that the law is respected.

But maintaining law and order is fundamentally different from determining cultural legitimacy.

Government should therefore be extremely careful to ensure that legitimate security involvement is never interpreted as an attempt to manufacture a preferred cultural outcome.

Why People Talk About the “Deep State”

The phrase “deep state” becomes attractive whenever important decisions appear to be made outside transparent institutions.

If citizens cannot clearly see who is making a decision, under what authority it is being made and according to which cultural rules, speculation fills the vacuum.

People begin asking whether intelligence agencies are involved, whether powerful political actors have preferred candidates and whether economic interests are influencing what should primarily be a cultural matter.

Such suspicions become even stronger when the affected region contains strategically important natural resources.

But accusations of covert State interference require evidence. We must therefore distinguish between legitimate questions, political suspicion and proven facts.

That distinction is essential.

Oil Must Not Determine Who Wears the Crown

Uganda’s oil belongs within the country’s national development conversation. Tooro’s royal succession belongs within its lawful cultural framework.

The two should never be deliberately mixed.

A traditional leader should not ascend the throne simply because he is convenient to Kampala. Neither should someone be excluded merely because those in political authority fear that he may one day challenge government policy.

The legitimacy of a cultural leader must come from the customs, traditions and institutions of the community concerned, operating within the Constitution and laws of Uganda.

Anything else risks weakening the very cultural institution the State claims to protect.

Let Tooro Determine Its Cultural Future

Government should guarantee peace and security during this sensitive period. It should protect all legitimate participants and ensure that disagreements do not degenerate into violence.

Beyond that, transparency is essential.

The Babiito royal clan and other legitimate traditional structures should be allowed to explain the applicable customs and perform their responsibilities without intimidation or improper political interference.

Uganda must resist turning cultural institutions into extensions of political administration.

Today the question may concern Tooro. Tomorrow it could concern another kingdom or cultural institution.

If every royal succession becomes a contest between tradition and powerful interests in Kampala, Uganda risks undermining the independence and credibility of the cultural institutions restored to preserve our heritage.

The issue before us is therefore bigger than identifying the next person to occupy a throne.

It is about whether Uganda trusts its traditional communities to manage their own cultural affairs within the law.

And as oil, land, politics and royal authority increasingly intersect in western Uganda, one question will continue to follow the Tooro succession debate:

Is this entirely a traditional process—or is an unseen political hand attempting to shape the crown?

The author, Salaamu Musumba, is the PFF Vice President for Eastern Uganda. The views expressed in this article are those of the author.