Lumumba Amin, son of former president Field Marshal Idi Amin Dada, has urged the public to stop drawing parallels between the rabid actions of Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba and his late father’s rule.
Amin’s legacy remains associated with state abductions, abuse of power, political killings, nepotism, shrinking civic space and governance failures. In recent days, several opposition figures have compared the latest security operations involving opposition politicians to the era of the infamous “panda gari” operations of the 1970s.
On Monday, soldiers believed to be attached to the Special Forces Command (SFC) reportedly raided the home of former Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago, scaled the perimeter wall and took him into custody. Muhoozi later took responsibility for the operation on social media, describing it as payback for Lukwago’s longstanding criticism of him and for attempting to serve him court summons.
The incident has in particular prompted comparisons with the Idi Amin era, but Lumumba said Muhoozi’s actions should be judged on their own merits. He argued that public scrutiny should focus on whether Muhoozi and state agencies are acting within the confines of the Constitution rather than invoking historical comparisons.
While critics have likened recent security operations to abuses committed during Idi Amin’s military government, Lumumba distanced his father’s legacy from the current controversy, saying history should not be invoked without regard to the facts of each case.
“A lot of people have been making comments and, all of a sudden, mentioning my late father, President Idi Amin, in something that he is not even responsible for,” Lumumba said.
“He is not even here. I am a bit perturbed by this sort of association of his name with other people’s actions.”
Lumumba argued that the central issue should be whether authorities acted within Uganda’s legal framework.
“If you want to know what the Amin position is on such an incident, the first thing is: What was he arrested for?” he asked. “What exactly is the crime? Under the laws of Uganda, what offence did he commit? What is the evidence? Those are the facts that should be made public.”
He maintained that transparency regarding the legal grounds for arrest is essential to preserving public confidence in the criminal justice system.
“Even if he is later released for one reason or another, there must be clarity about exactly why he was arrested. It should be clear that he was not arrested arbitrarily or as an abuse of power.”
Lumumba’s remarks have renewed attention on constitutional safeguards governing arrest and detention. Article 23 of the 1995 Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty and prohibits arbitrary arrest. It requires that every arrested person be informed immediately of the reasons for arrest in a language they understand and be produced before a competent court within 48 hours.
Article 28 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, while Article 20 obliges all state organs and public officials to respect, uphold and promote the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. The Criminal Procedure Code Act further requires that arrests be based on lawful authority, reasonable suspicion and recognised criminal offences.
Lumumba insisted that every arrest must be anchored in clearly identifiable offences.
“You cannot arrest anybody without having clear legal reasons to do so. It must relate to an offence recognised under the laws of Uganda, together with the evidence supporting that allegation,” he said.
“I ask the public to be patient and wait for the details. We need to know precisely what offence the former Lord Mayor is alleged to have committed, and then we can discuss the matter from an informed position.”
He extended the same appeal to Uganda’s international partners, many of whom have expressed concern over recent reports involving opposition politicians and alleged human rights violations.
“Even the country’s foreign partners are concerned about these issues. Why they are concerned is another debate, but I ask everyone to wait for the facts,” he said.
Lumumba’s appeal contrasted sharply with reactions from opposition leaders, who argue that the reported arrest reflects a pattern of repression reminiscent of Uganda’s authoritarian past.
Former Kira Municipality MP and People’s Front for Freedom (PFF) spokesperson Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda welcomed Lukwago’s transfer to Luzira Prison, saying detention in a recognised prison offered greater legal protection than alleged military custody.
Recalling the detention of the late Hajji Aziz Kasujja during Idi Amin’s administration, Ssemujju said military officers at the time reportedly told Kasujja that prison was safer than remaining in military detention.
“Today, we find ourselves relieved that Lukwago is in Luzira rather than allegedly being held under military custody,” he said, describing the comparison as indicative of growing public anxiety over extra-judicial detention.
National Unity Platform (NUP) president Robert Kyagulanyi, popularly known as Bobi Wine, was more direct in comparing the current administration with Uganda’s military past. Kyagulanyi accused the government of employing methods similar to those associated with Idi Amin’s feared State Research Bureau.
“You can abduct and torture him, but you cannot break his resolve,” Kyagulanyi said.
He argued that repression exposes institutional weakness rather than political strength and asserted that Uganda’s “liberators” had adopted the very tactics they once condemned.
Kyagulanyi further claimed that both the alleged detention facilities in Mbuya and the notorious State Research Bureau headquarters in Nakasero represented different eras of the same struggle over state power. He also criticised Uganda’s international partners for continuing to support the government despite persistent human rights concerns.
Pauline Nansamba Mutumba, director for Complaints, Investigations and Legal Services at the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC), said constitutional safeguards exist to protect both individual liberty and public confidence in justice.
“Every institution involved in law enforcement has a duty to ensure that constitutional rights are respected throughout the arrest and detention process,” she said. “Transparency and accountability remain fundamental principles in protecting human rights.”
The reported arrest of Lukwago has become the latest flashpoint in Uganda’s increasingly polarised debate over constitutional governance and security sector accountability.
Opposition leaders have petitioned Parliament to reconvene during recess to debate allegations of arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, military involvement in civilian law enforcement and compliance with court orders.
Leader of the Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi argues that Parliament has a constitutional responsibility to exercise oversight whenever credible allegations of human rights violations arise.
History can be both instructive and comparative. The officer I recall who wielded nearly unrestricted power was Gen. Oyite Ojok, Chief of Staff of the UNLA. He operated with such autonomy that even President Obote at the time had little control over him. However, power is often fleeting. I remember 3 December 1983 as if it were yesterday. In a single, unremarkable day, everything in Uganda changed.