THERE IS A BIG PROBLEM IN YOUR STATEMENTS, THEY WILL TEAR THE KINGDOM. LET ME TELL YOU WHY; Your statement is long, but its central weakness is remarkably simple: it assumes the very authority that the Queen Mother is challenging. You tell us that over 100 Babiito met at Karuziika, selected 21 people, and that this became the “Royal Succession Committee.” But where, precisely, did those 100 Babiito derive the legal or customary authority to constitute a body whose decision would determine the next Omukama? Calling it a “Royal Succession Committee” does not answer that question. A committee does not become legitimate merely because it gives itself a name, holds a meeting and votes. If the Queen Mother’s objection is that this was a “self-appointed group,” the answer cannot simply be: more than 100 people attended. The real question is whether those people had the recognised mandate under Tooro custom to constitute the body that Mwenda now treats as the supreme electoral authority. That is the answer 'Best' is looking for. There is another serious problem. You say Oyo’s son was excluded because there was no photograph, there were questions about his mother, different names had been used, and some Babiito had never heard of him. But since when does not having a photograph at a meeting become a customary test of dynastic legitimacy? As, you claim to be an 'old man of the clan', do you think the absence of the above, delegitimise the young boy (if any) of his royalty? Be fair Andrew!!! If the existence of a possible heir was genuinely in dispute, the rational course would have been to verify the claim—identity, parentage, birth records, DNA where appropriate, testimony, and the applicable customary requirements. Instead, the committee allegedly moved from uncertainty to exclusion. That is not the same thing as disproving the claim. You also make a revealing rhetorical move by repeatedly calling the child “Oyo’s purported son.” That is a conclusion masquerading as neutral description. If paternity is disputed, then say it is disputed. Do not use the language of uncertainty to create the impression that the claim has already been discredited. You say the Queen Mother was represented on the committee by her brother Patrick Kawamara. But if the Queen Mother herself is an institutionally significant actor in the succession of her deceased son, why should her participation be reduced to being represented by a relative on a committee whose mandate she disputes? Would you expect a sober mother like 'Best' to be in such a contested meeting with her son lying unburied?? Representation is not the same thing as consent. Nor does the fact that a person attends a meeting necessarily mean that they accept the legitimacy of the process taking place at that meeting. The argument about the will is equally problematic. You say the will contains only a “hypothetical heir” and therefore does not resolve succession. Fine. But if the will does not resolve succession, why is it being deployed as part of the argument against the Queen Mother’s position? A will may answer questions concerning property and personal wishes. Succession to a traditional throne is a different question governed by the applicable constitutional, statutory and customary framework. So the real issue is not whether Oyo’s will magically names a successor. The real issue is whether the succession process being undertaken is lawful, customary, legitimate and inclusive of the institutions entitled to participate in it. And this is where your statement becomes politically interesting. You spend enormous energy explaining why Oyo’s possible son should not automatically inherit. But who is arguing that a son automatically inherits? That is a straw man!!! The more difficult question is whether the existence of a son and the circumstances of his birth must first be conclusively established before the kingdom closes the succession question. Those are completely different propositions. Your statement also says the kingdom was “time barred” and therefore moved to the next candidate after George Kamurasi allegedly asked for time to consult his wife and business partners. Time-barred by what rule? What customary provision imposes that deadline? Who set it? Why was the deadline necessary? And why should the urgency of filling the throne override unresolved questions concerning a possible direct descendant of the deceased Omukama? These are not minor procedural questions. They go to the legitimacy of the entire process. But there is an even deeper issue that your statement does not confront. Why is there such extraordinary urgency to determine the next King? If the real objective is simply to identify the most legitimate successor, there should be no fear of a transparent process that establishes the facts first. The controversy therefore appears to be about more than the identity of the next Omukama. It is about who will have influence over the next Omukama. The Queen Mother is not merely another relative of the late King. She occupies a distinct cultural position and has been closely associated with the young King and the institution of the Tooro monarchy. Therefore, a succession struggle in which the Queen Mother’s influence is diminished, her preferred position is challenged, and a new succession structure is rapidly constructed around her is inevitably going to raise questions about the political future of the institution itself. This is why the debate should not be reduced to: “Did Oyo introduce his son?” “Was there a photograph?” “What did the will say?” “Did 100 Babiito meet?” Those are pieces of the puzzle—not the puzzle itself. The fundamental questions are: Who has the authority to determine succession? What customary rules confer that authority? Was the Queen Mother’s institutional role properly recognised? Why was the possible heir excluded rather than subjected to a transparent verification process? What exactly made the succession process “time barred”? And, ultimately: Who benefits from determining the next Omukama through this particular process, at this particular moment, and with the Queen Mother’s influence reduced? Until those questions are answered, your statement does not settle the succession dispute. It merely gives us one side’s explanation of why it believes it should control the process. And that is precisely the issue in dispute.