Why Yusuf Lule was removed from office after only 68 days

In his Radio Uganda statement on May 19, 1979, reported in the Uganda Times edition of May 21, 1979, Lule said, “The Uganda government won’t de-Africanise premises and businesses taken over by indigenous Ugandans when Dictator Idi Amin declared his so-called economic war in 1972… President Lule explained that any policy that provided for de-Africanisation of such premises and businesses was ‘politically wrong and untenable.’”

Why was it “politically wrong and untenable”, according to President Lule, for the new UNLF government to return the nationalised properties to their former owners?

As we saw in part five of this series, the effect of Amin’s turning the Ugandan economy over to Ugandans, while at first chaotic with inexperienced Ugandan hands now running industry and commerce, had been dramatic. Black Ugandans had, by and large, taken up an active and visible role in their economy.

Despite all their anti-Amin propaganda before the war, the former exiles, now in power in Kampala, knew that Amin’s economic policies and so-called “economic war” had started Ugandans on the path to full, dignified independence.

That is why Lule, although essentially brought to power by the British, was not going to risk and take this newly-found economic control, created by Amin, away from Ugandans.

However, there were some other complicated issues facing Lule. It had never been absolutely clear under what terms Lule was to govern.

In Moshi, many argued that Lule or whoever was to become UNLF president would govern under the Moshi agreements that stipulated, among other things, that the president was not to make cabinet appointments without first consulting the National Consultative Council, which was Uganda’s de facto parliament.

Lule, for his part, argued that he had taken the oath of office as President of the Republic of Uganda under the terms of the 1967 constitution and this constitution stood above all other provisions, including the Moshi arrangement.

The Chairman of the National Consultative Council, Mr Edward Rugumayo, insisted that it had been agreed that the Moshi Constitution would govern Uganda and so Lule had no powers to make cabinet changes without first consulting the NCC.

As Lule himself wrote, rather eloquently, “The constitution of a state is different from that of a party which is in government, and clearly the front [UNLF] is quite analogous to a party in this regard. Failure to understand this basic distinction is faulty and could lead to confusion and unsatisfactory results.”

Both Lule and the NCC were right, depending on what their point of view was. But meanwhile, as all this jostling for power was going on, Uganda was rapidly turning into a failed state. Car robberies, murders of prominent and ordinary Ugandans by unknown gunmen, and a general state of breakdown.

For the NCC to remove Lule because he had made a cabinet reshuffle without consulting them was like a company losing $15 million a month, but the board of directors sacks the managing director because he bought a new office photocopier without first consulting them.

Politicians seemed more bothered by arguments about presidential powers than about the rampant armed robberies and murders in the country.

The truth of why Lule was ousted later became clear. In his first major statement as president, Lule’s successor Godfrey Binaisa said: “It was a shock to the National Consultative Council and the entire people of Uganda when Lule’s government began to make pronouncements accusing units of the UNLF [UNLA] of thuggery, killing, rape, robbery.”

That is significant. We now see that the real reason for Lule’s fall, as explained by Binaisa, was because Lule blamed the outbreak of this violence on the very liberators that Ugandans had so naively welcomed. The question is: what made Lule believe that elements within the UNLA were behind the murders?