The recent gazettement of Edward Rukidi Nyabongo I as Omukama of Tooro has revived questions about the titles used to address traditional rulers and the historical distinctions behind them. Omukama Nyabongo I was formally recognised following his coronation on September 29, 2026. He succeeded Omukama Oyo Nyimba Kabamba Iguru Rukidi IV, who died on August 27, 2026.
But the official recognition has drawn attention to a seemingly subtle distinction: should Uganda’s traditional kings be addressed as His Majesty or His Highness?
The government General Notice No. 2204 of 2026, published in the Uganda Gazette on October 16, referred to the new king as “His Majesty,” a designation that contrasts with the title “His Highness” that President Yoweri Museveni has often used when addressing other traditional rulers, including the Kabaka.
The notice, signed by Lt. Gen. Henry Tumukunde, the Minister of Gender, Labour and Social Development, cited Article 246 of the Constitution and the Institution of Traditional or Cultural Leaders Act, 2011, as the legal basis for the recognition. It stated that the succession process followed the cultural norms, customs, and traditions of Obukama bwa Tooro, culminating in Nyabongo’s selection, endorsement, and coronation.
During Nyabongo’s coronation on September 29, the President also repeatedly referred to him as “His Highness”. But does the distinction matter?
Bernard Bakaye Lubega, the Assistant Commissioner for Culture in the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, dismissed the difference as largely a matter of translation. Speaking to Uganda Radio Network, Bakaye said the title Rukirabasaija, used in the Tooro cultural context, translates into English as “His Majesty”.
“It is the issue of translation, nothing big at all,” he said, adding that the appropriate title should be understood within the context of local languages and cultural traditions.
Bakaye said the four traditional kingdoms recognised in Uganda, Buganda, Bunyoro, Tooro and Busoga, generally refer to their kings as “His Majesty”, while paramount chiefs in other cultural institutions are commonly addressed as “His Highness”.
He criticised attempts to portray the distinction as a controversy, arguing that it did not warrant the attention it had received.
However, the historical record suggests that royal titles have not always been interchangeable, particularly in the context of Uganda’s relationship with Britain. During British colonial rule, royal titles were tied to the political and constitutional arrangements governing traditional institutions.
The 1900 Buganda Agreement and subsequent agreements between the Buganda Kingdom and the British authorities, including the 1961 agreement, provide an important historical reference point.
The 1900 agreement, for instance, stipulated that the Kabaka of Buganda would be entitled to the style of “His Highness”. The distinction reflected the hierarchy of authority within the British imperial system. While the Kabaka retained authority over Buganda under the arrangements established with the colonial government, sovereignty ultimately rested with the British Crown.
The title “His Majesty” was associated with the British monarch, whose authority extended across the empire. In that context, the use of “His Highness” for the Kabaka reflected the position assigned to him within the colonial constitutional order.
This historical explanation, however, does not automatically establish that the same distinction governs the titles of Uganda’s traditional rulers today. Nor does it, by itself, determine whether the use of “His Majesty” for a king such as the Omukama of Tooro is inconsistent with the historical conventions applied to the Kabaka.
Uganda’s Constitution recognises traditional and cultural leaders under Article 246, while the Institution of Traditional or Cultural Leaders Act, 2011, provides the statutory framework for their recognition and operation. However, neither instrument explicitly prescribes a uniform English honorific, “His Majesty” or “His Highness,” for all traditional rulers.
That leaves an important question: if the law recognises these institutions without expressly standardising their royal titles, what determines the appropriate form of address? Is it the individual kingdom’s cultural tradition, the established protocol of the state, historical agreements, or a combination of these factors?
Bakaye’s explanation points to translation and cultural practice. The historical agreements, meanwhile, demonstrate that titles have also carried political and constitutional significance. The distinction may therefore be more than a linguistic question, even if it does not, in itself, alter the legal status or powers of a traditional ruler-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
