‘We should not downplay the civilising mission of colonists’

The recent controversy in Uganda surrounding competing narratives about colonialism and traditional authority systems reveals a critical fault line in East African institutional governance—one with significant implications for European investors assessing the region's political stability and investment climate. At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question about how African societies interpret and integrate their historical institutional frameworks. The discussion about traditional chiefs during the colonial period has evolved beyond academic discourse into a broader conversation about legitimacy, authority structures, and nation-building. For investors, such tensions indicate underlying uncertainties about how institutional decisions will be made and whose interests will be prioritized in policy formation. **The Institutional Governance Context** Uganda's traditional leadership systems represent a complex legacy. Unlike some neighbors that abolished chiefdoms entirely, Uganda maintained parallel governance structures—combining centralized state authority with decentralized traditional leadership in certain regions. This duality creates both opportunities and complications. While traditional authorities can facilitate local-level engagement and provide social legitimacy for development projects, they can also introduce competing power centers and complicate regulatory clarity. The current debate reflects broader questions about institutional identity that have surfaced across East Africa as nations reassess their colonial inheritance. Countries like Kenya and Tanzania have similarly