The handshake that followed mediation of the long-running Bugisu cultural leadership dispute offered a rare moment of unity after years of court battles, competing claims and divisions over the leadership of Inzu Ya Masaba.
But barely after the celebrations faded, disagreements over implementation of the settlement have emerged, raising questions about whether the peace achieved at the mediation table can survive the difficult transition from a legal agreement into a functioning cultural institution.
The first major test has come through the Imbalu inauguration, where rival interpretations of the consent judgment have exposed unresolved questions over who exercises authority over cultural functions and how quickly the powers restored to Umukuka Jude Mike Mudoma should take effect.
Before the mediation, the Minister of Gender, Labour and Social Development, General Henry Tumukunde, political and cultural leaders, rival parties and other stakeholders agreed that an ad hoc inter-district committee comprising chairpersons from the six Bugisu districts and Mbale City would oversee preparations for cultural activities to avoid renewed confrontation.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
After the settlement, district chairpersons maintained that the arrangement remained valid and proceeded with preparations.
However, the Umukuka's camp disagreed, arguing that the consent judgment restoring Mudoma's cultural authority also restored his control over the organisation and supervision of cultural activities, including Imbalu.
Umukuka spokesperson Steven Masiga accused district leaders of acting against the court settlement.
"The district chairpersons should be arrested for disobeying a court ruling. The consent judgment reinstated Umukuka Jude Mike Mudoma, which means cultural activities fall under his jurisdiction," Masiga said.
The disagreement resulted in parallel preparations, with Mudoma's team organising a royal dinner at Mt Elgon Hotel, while district leaders mobilised resources for the main inauguration ceremony.
The dispute came into public view during the launch of the 2026 Imbalu season at Bumutoto, where Mudoma attended but was not formally recognised.
The incident reignited questions that mediation was expected to resolve: what authority does the consent judgment immediately give Mudoma, and who manages cultural functions while Inzu Ya Masaba's structures are being restored?
Cultural activist Mathias Nabutele argues that the settlement should not be interpreted simply as the restoration of the Umukuka's position but as the revival of the entire institutional framework of Inzu Ya Masaba.
He says the agreement requires the re-establishment of structures including the General Assembly, Governing Board and Culture Council, which he describes as the bodies responsible for running the institution.
"We are immediately supposed to have all structures of Inzu Ya Masaba, including the General Assembly, a Governing Board and Culture Council. Those are the managers of this institution," Nabutele said.
He believes the tension at Bumutoto was a result of accumulated frustrations from years of conflict and should now be addressed through reconciliation rather than confrontation.
Nabutele also criticised what he described as excessive political involvement in cultural affairs, arguing that the focus of Imbalu should remain on traditional circumcisers and candidates undergoing initiation.
He said Mudoma's return to cultural leadership must be accompanied by efforts to rebuild trust among communities and factions that have opposed his leadership.
For Nabutele, the immediate priority should be restoring the structures of Inzu Ya Masaba and initiating reconciliation with all sections of the community.
Engineer Darlington Sakwa, one of the founders of Inzu Ya Masaba and a party to the court cases, agrees that the institution's restoration is no longer open to debate because it is contained in the consent judgment.
"The restoration of the cultural institution is without doubt a reality. Anybody who thinks it isn't is dreaming," Sakwa said.
However, Sakwa argues that the settlement must be implemented as a complete package.
The consent judgment restored the 2011 Inzu Ya Masaba constitution, reinstated the five-year rotational leadership system and confirmed Mudoma's tenure until July 2028.
Sakwa says Mudoma's leadership exists within the restored constitutional framework, which means the Umukuka's powers must operate alongside institutional structures.
"He's a ceremonial head. So we as the consenting parties are going to invoke both the consent judgment and the constitution of Inzu Ya Masaba to put back the institution on its feet," he said.
He explained that parties to the settlement are developing timelines for reconstituting the institution and intend to publish them once they are agreed upon.
Sakwa also revealed that lawyers representing the parties are working to extract a formal decree from court, which he described as necessary for practical enforcement of the judgment.
"The delays have been mainly because when you get a court judgment, you are supposed to extract a decree. A court judgment without a decree is difficult to enforce. So the lawyers are extracting the decree," he said.
The Imbalu Question
The biggest disagreement has centred on whether Mudoma was entitled to preside over the Imbalu inauguration immediately after the mediation agreement.
Sakwa argues that Mudoma's attendance at Bumutoto did not automatically give him authority to take over the event before institutional and administrative arrangements were completed.
He said parties had previously agreed under the guidance of the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development that cultural leaders would not preside over the Mutoto ceremony.
In his view, Mudoma was free to attend as a participant, but assuming control of the ceremony would have been premature.
Nabutele shares a similar position, saying the Umukuka should first focus on rebuilding the institution and reconciling with opposing groups before demanding full recognition of his authority.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
"A prior meeting at Mbale Senior Secondary School, chaired by General Tumukunde, had resolved that no Umukuka should attend the Mutoto inauguration regardless of the outcome of the court mediation," Nabutele said.
He argued that Mudoma's appearance at Bumutoto created an unusual situation because he attended but was not given an opportunity to address the gathering.
However, Mudoma's lawyer Masa Joseph challenged this interpretation, saying the resolutions from the Mbale Senior Secondary School meeting were not formally documented.
He said Mudoma understood the meeting as an effort to prevent confrontation and promote reconciliation before the court settlement.
"It was common sense that the Umukuka issue that caused security concern was no more, as all factions were now at peace," Masa said.
The conflicting interpretations highlight the biggest challenge facing Bugisu after mediation: translating a legal settlement into a functioning cultural institution while rebuilding trust among factions that have spent years in conflict.
Despite the disagreements, Nabutele and Sakwa appear united on one point -- that the settlement must now move beyond paper and become a practical reality.
Masa also acknowledged that differing interpretations of the agreement have created confusion, calling for a post-mediation meeting bringing together all stakeholders to clarify the way forward.
