The succession of the late Tooro King Oyo Nyimba Kabamba Iguru Rukidi IV should be determined by Ugandan law, Tooro customs and traditions, and the late King’s valid will, according to Attorney General Dr Sam Mayanja.
In a legal opinion dated 12 September 2026 and addressed to President Yoweri Museveni, Mayanja explained how the law applies to the succession dispute that emerged following King Oyo’s death.
The opinion was requested by President Museveni amid disagreement over who should become the next Omukama of Tooro.
Mayanja said birth and descent are the main principles used to determine who succeeds to a traditional or cultural institution.
He based his interpretation on Article 246 of the Constitution, which recognises traditional and cultural leaders in accordance with the cultures, customs and traditions of the communities they lead.
He also cited Sections 3 and 4 of the Institution of Traditional or Cultural Leaders Act, 2011. The provisions require traditional leadership to operate in accordance with the customs and traditions of the people, as well as their wishes and aspirations.
According to Mayanja, these laws, together with the Tooro Kingdom Constitution, form the legal framework for determining succession to the Tooro throne.
Mayanja noted, however, that the Tooro Kingdom Constitution is currently suspended.
King Oyo suspended its observance in 2013, citing several provisions that he considered inconsistent with Ugandan law. The suspension was later upheld by the courts in the case of George Kusemererwa vs King Oyo.
Although King Oyo subsequently appointed a committee to review the Tooro Constitution, Mayanja said the process had not been completed by the time of the King’s death.
This means that the Attorney General considers the Constitution, although part of the broader legal framework, cannot currently be relied on as an operative document in determining the succession.
The most important document in Mayanja’s interpretation is King Oyo’s will, dated 14 September 2022.
In the will, King Oyo provided for his successor and specifically addressed what should happen if he died leaving a biological son who was lawfully recognised as his child.
According to Article 10(1) of the will, King Oyo appointed such a son as his heir to the Kingdom of Tooro, subject to the law and the customs and traditions of the kingdom.
Mayanja therefore interprets the provision to mean that if King Oyo left a biological son who is lawfully recognised as his child, that son should be the heir to the Tooro throne.
In other words, the Attorney General’s position is that direct descent from King Oyo takes priority where a legally recognised biological son exists.
King Oyo’s will also provided for an alternative successor.
Under paragraph 10(2), if the King had no son capable of succeeding him, or if his son died before taking up the throne, became permanently incapacitated or was otherwise unable to perform the duties of the Omukama, his cousin, Prince Komwiswa Yoweri, son of Omusuuga Charles, would become his heir and successor.
The will therefore sets out a clear order of succession: a legally recognised biological son would take precedence, while Prince Komwiswa Yoweri would become the alternative successor if the conditions specified in the will applied.
Mayanja also noted that Ugandan courts have previously recognised the relevance of a former traditional ruler’s will when determining succession.
Can the will be challenged?
Yes.
While Mayanja recommends that King Oyo’s will should be followed, he acknowledged that its validity or interpretation can be challenged.
He referred to Section 15(1) of the Institution of Traditional and Cultural Leaders Act, which provides for disputes within traditional or cultural institutions to be handled through councils of elders, clan leaders or their representatives.
If a dispute over the validity or interpretation of the will cannot be resolved through those traditional mechanisms, Mayanja said the matter can ultimately be taken to court.
Therefore, the Attorney General’s opinion does not prevent anyone from challenging the will. Instead, it provides his legal interpretation of how the succession should be handled unless a competent authority or court determines otherwise.
Mayanja also addressed an important Tooro succession ritual involving the burial of the King.
Under Tooro customs, nine coffee beans are traditionally thrown into the grave by the successor as confirmation of his succession to the throne.
Because there is currently a dispute over who should succeed King Oyo, Mayanja recommended that this particular part of the burial ritual be suspended until the succession question is determined.
He said there was precedent for delaying the ritual. During the burial of the late King Kaboyo, the coffee beans were thrown into the grave three months after his death and burial, after his successor had been identified.
Mayanja said there is no legal impediment to King Oyo’s burial proceeding despite the succession dispute.
His recommendation is therefore to allow the burial to take place but postpone the ritual that symbolically confirms the successor until the dispute has been resolved.
In simple terms, Mayanja’s legal opinion is that the succession dispute should not be decided solely through an announcement or political process.
Instead, it should be guided by Ugandan law, Tooro customs and traditions, the principle of succession by birth and descent, and King Oyo’s valid will.
His interpretation gives priority to a legally recognised biological son of King Oyo where one exists. If the conditions set out in the will make the son unable to succeed, the alternative successor named by King Oyo would come into consideration.
However, because the succession is disputed, the matter can first be handled through the traditional dispute-resolution mechanisms provided for by law and, if necessary, ultimately determined by a court.
