Firstly, it is important to understand who the Ugandan Martyrs are, and why are they called as such. The name ‘Uganda martyrs’ is a Christian based title given to a group of Ugandan Christian converts who were executed for defying the orders of their King in the late 19thcentury. About 45 Christian men of which consisted 22 Roman Catholics and 23 Anglicans
were put to death and later came to be recognized as Ugandan martyrs. Ronald Kassimir writes, the “execution of Christians in 1885-1887 by the political leadership of Buganda, including both Kabaka16 Mwanga II and Katikkiro (roughly 'Prime Minister') Mukasa, occurred within ten years of the arrival of the first Christian missionaries to Buganda in 1877” (Kassimir 1991:359). According to the story of Ugandan martyrs, it is held:
“He (Kabaka Mwanga II) became angry at the missionaries’ encouragement to the
Christian page boys (known as readers) to refuse his homosexual advances. When he began to associate that refusal with disloyalty in foreign relations, he resolved to act. Mwanga II commanded that all Christian converts renounce their faith. When many refused to comply, he ordered that they be executed. One group—composed of Anglicans and Catholics—was burned to death in the place for the royal punishment of traitors at Namugongo on June 3, 1886. All of those executed became known as the Uganda Martyrs (Knighton 2015:428)
The aspect of Ugandan Christian martyrs, has in recent times taken a more emphatic explanation alongside the issue of homosexuality in Uganda. The prominent view is that: “young men who served as pages at the court of the Buganda King (Mwanga II) but who after their conversion refused to submit to the King’s sexual demand,…were then murdered in a massacre in 1886” (Van Klinken and Chitando 2016:4). This event that had taken place on 3rd June 1886 and is remembered annually, especially in Uganda, as a triumph of Christianity over calls to embrace homosexuality in Uganda. Christian leaders both local and foreign often use this story to teach rejection of homosexuality while referring to the Ugandan martyrs as models to be emulated (Faupel 1984; 2007, Rao 2015).
In 1964, Pope Paul VI while canonizing the Ugandan martyrs commended the Ugandan martyrs as heroes towards the fight against immoral practices such as homosexuality. In his homily, delivered on the occasion of canonization, the Pope described homosexuality as an “infamous crime”, “unspeakable”, rejection of which by the Martyrs demonstrated that “a new people
16 Kabaka is royal title among the Baganda of Uganda used for a King. In this work both titles, that is, king and
needs a moral foundation, needs new spiritual customs firmly planted, to be handed down to posterity” (Pope Paul VI 1964). From the Pope’s expressions on the Ugandan martyrdom (in reference to homosexuality), it could be understood that there was a demonstrable conflict between homosexuality and Christianity. In this regard, homosexuality conflicted with Christian based principles of morality and was therefore considered to be immoral. A society that rejects homosexuality would in this case be a community of new people with moral foundations. On the other side, the society that condones homosexuality would persist as one that lacks moral foundations and spiritual customs. The Ugandan martyrs were thus presented as symbols and exemplars of moral- social order while those who practiced homosexuality as the King did, were perpetuators of immorality.
Early Christian missionaries demonstrated kinship when it came to documenting stories of early converts expressing how they rejected homosexuality. In the ethnological text Black Martyrs, Thoonen makes reference to the testimony of Andrew Kiwanuka one of the Catholic converts who happened to have survived the 19th century massacre of Christian men in Uganda.
At that time, the Kabaka [King] practiced the works of Sodom. Moslems and pagans were prepared to do those things with the king, but the Catholics absolutely refused. For that reason the Kabaka began to detest us, and deliberated with the pagans and Moslems about putting us to death, us the Catholics…with my own ears, I heard him [Mwanga II ] utter words of anger because the young Catholics refused to sin; I for one
was often importuned by him but refused (Thoonen 1941:105)17
The historical testimony of Andrew Kiwanuka suggests that sodomy, which has been interpreted as homosexuality, was to be refused especially by those professing the Christian faith. The event of Ugandan martyrs has not been used by only religious leaders as a sign of rejecting homosexuality in Uganda. Politicians, too, have been vocal on the subject. According to Francis Kagoro, in 2010 the Ugandan president, while delivering his speech on the Uganda martyrs’ celebration (which occurs every 3rd June) asserted: “These young men (martyrs) stood
for cleanliness, truth and righteousness, I hear there was homosexuality in Mwanga II’s palace. This was not part of our culture. I hear he learnt it from the Arabs. But the martyrs refused these falsehoods and went for the truth, which is why we are honouring them today” (Kagoro 2010). This is one of the suggestive positions which seek to present the aspect of homosexuality
17 The testimony is given by a Roman Catholic convert and seems to speak from a Roman Catholic point of view.
However, it is not to state that only Roman Catholics were put to death as the martyrdom also included Anglican converts. I purposely refer to this work because it is one of the first studies done on the Uganda Martyrs, attempting to show how the execution of Uganda martyrs is linked to their rejection of homosexuality. This work has influenced subsequent key works for instance that of Feupel African Holocaust (1984; 2007) in which this subject is further detailed.
in reference to the former Buganda King and the execution of the 45 Christian men in Uganda.
The coloration between Martyrs, Mwanga II and homosexuality seems to be one of the existing operational frameworks through which homosexuality would be easily criminalized or rejected in Uganda. This operational framework could be further reasserted through an argument that Mwanga II practiced “un-natural acts”; that he often practiced the “un-natural acts” with the pages of the royal court; that when the pages were introduced to Christianity, they became ‘aware’ of the “so undesirable practice” and their incompatibility with the Christian faith to the extent that they rebelled against the King’s order which intended to force them to fall victim to the “un-natural acts” with the Kabaka (Van Klinken and Chitando 2016:198; Mubiru 2012:105; Hoad 2007:1). The argument has also been used to authenticate the assumption that homosexuality has always been rejected by certain members of the Ugandan communities especially as far as Christianity is concerned. It is important to note that while attempting to establish the influence of the AAEs towards the legislation of the 2014 AHL, there is a need to consider the coloration between the Martyrs, Mwanga II the 19th century Buganda King and homosexuality, and its implication in the debate. This coloration seems to be an historical power of influence in the Ugandan society that continues to regulate perceptions towards homosexuality and its practice in Uganda.
The history of homosexuality has attempted to dominantly present the practice as a battle ground between the Buganda King and the Ugandan Christians of the 19th century. This creates an atmosphere of rejection towards homosexuality rather than tolerance and acceptance. By centralizing homosexuality claims against the person of Mwanga II without extending it explicitly to his subjects, could imply that homosexuality was a one-man conceived or acquired practice, rather than a culturally lived or tolerated practice. In other words, even though this aspect has been used to justify the presence of homosexuality in the Ugandan society, the study argues that it conceals the discourse from the society as it focuses on the person of the King. This also insinuates a belief that, other than Mwanga II, his subjects were not necessarily practicing homosexuality, which in itself frames homosexuality, a rejected practice. This observation is reinforced by claims made by Harry Johnston as quoted in Hoad’s work, concerning Mwanga II with regards to homosexuality and his subjects: “Perhaps he might still have been King had not his vicious propensities taken a turn which disgusted even his negro people…” (Hoad 2007:5).
Sir Harry Johnston’s assertion presupposes that the King and his people had different perceptions over homosexual practices. While the King apparently ‘embraced’ the practice and
attempted to lure some of his subjects into it- as it is argued- the practice was perceived with contempt by his subjects. This creates a paradoxical frame.