By Joseph Kamugisha via UAH forum
Not only does the presence of the army deprive the Cultural leaders of their Cultural status but the mere fact that the representation of the Institution of the Army represents a political atmosphere and a reflection of the 1966 Lubiri crisis.
The idea of keeping the army away from Cultural leaders is not to suggest that the leaders should have lesser trained guards. Far from it. The idea though, is to exemplify how other Royal Institutions are protected. Much as Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, Charles and the rest of the family members in the British Royal family all have military training, they rely on un uniformed but highly trained and skilled officers in all aspects of “[VIP] Protocol Protection Services” The same protection agents could be recruits from the Marines, Ex-Police officers, ex-Military officers, current spy agents or Terrorist Tactical Agents. It does not matter, where they are recruited from but the key issue is that they should always be dressed in civilian arround the Kabaka and other Cultural leaders in order to separate the political from cultural institutions.
A uniformed army advance protection unit could be summoned to a particular location where the cultural leader[s] are expected, but again that should only be for guarding the location, site, buildings, but not any where close to the Cultural leaders.