Overview:
Uganda needs an inclusive national dialogue to overcome its political divisions. But meaningful dialogue cannot begin while political prisoners remain detained, opposition figures live in exile, and citizens lack the freedom to discuss their future. First, Ugandans must be free to talk as equals.
Charles Onyango-Obbo’s recent Ear to the Ground column broached a subject long kept in the shadows: Ugandans need to talk to one another.
Yet how does a nation discuss its future when influential political voices are behind bars, others are driven into exile, and military basements cast a shadow over civilian politics?
Dr Kizza Besigye should not languish in detention, nor should Erias Lukwago, Alex Mufumbiro, or other political actors face persecution for their convictions. Robert Kyagulanyi, popularly known as Bobi Wine, and other political exiles must be free to return without fear.
Nobody should be tortured, abducted, or disappeared. Uganda cannot advertise hospitality to refugees while driving its own citizens into exile.
Political freedom is not a reward to be granted after dialogue. It is a condition for meaningful dialogue to begin.
Why Uganda Must Talk
Six decades after independence, Uganda remains trapped in a paradox: an elaborate constitutional framework without the inclusive political settlement necessary to sustain it.
The 1995 Constitution promised popular sovereignty, accountable government, and an end to arbitrary rule. Yet many of the evils it sought to eliminate persist. Presidential term limits were removed in 2005, age limits followed in 2017, accountability institutions struggle to exercise independence, and security agencies retain undue influence over civilian politics.
Despite extensive consultations, constitution-making unfolded under Movement dominance, with multiparty competition constrained.
Legal safeguards cannot enforce themselves against determined political power. A constitution gives legal expression to an underlying political settlement; where that settlement remains contested, constitutional safeguards become vulnerable to manipulation by those controlling state power.
Some insist political disputes belong in Parliament, courts, and elections. In a functioning democracy, they would be right. But what happens when substantial sections of society regard those institutions as compromised?
Dialogue does not betray the Constitution. It seeks to restore the consensus necessary to make constitutionalism a lived reality rather than a parchment barrier.
Freedom Before Dialogue
Uganda cannot credibly convene a national dialogue while principal political actors remain imprisoned, others are driven into exile, and citizens cannot freely organise.
The unconditional release of those detained for peacefully exercising political rights, an end to politically motivated persecution and prosecutions, and guarantees of safe return for exiles must be immediate priorities.
Even Ofwono Opondo, a longstanding NRM defender and former government spokesperson, has questioned the government’s handling of Besigye’s detention and called for Besigye and Lukwago to have access to their families, lawyers, and personal doctors.
At a recent NUP memorial gathering, Muwanga Kivumbi spoke of imprisoned colleagues, political abductions, and Robert Kyagulanyi’s absence. His appeal for perseverance reflects the grievances and mistrust that any credible dialogue must confront.
Meanwhile, Andrew Mwenda’s suggestion that Besigye is unlikely to obtain a presidential pardon because he will not admit guilt exposes a fundamental constitutional distinction. The presidential prerogative of mercy under Article 121 concerns convicted persons.
Besigye remains an accused person entitled to the presumption of innocence, due process, and independent judicial consideration of his liberty. Constitutional rights cannot become presidential favours.
Where genuine criminal allegations exist, independent adjudication must prevail. Criminal proceedings must never become instruments for suppressing political competition.
These are constitutional obligations, not concessions to be negotiated. No meaningful dialogue can occur while some participants negotiate in suits and ties and others sit in leg irons.
Uganda Belongs to All Ugandans
Uganda belongs to no political party, military formation, religious establishment, cultural institution, political family, or historical generation. It belongs equally to all Ugandans.
The NRM cannot claim perpetual ownership because it led the armed struggle that brought the present government to power. Neither can opposition parties claim exclusive authority because they oppose the incumbent government. Historical sacrifice confers no perpetual entitlement to govern.
President Museveni’s participation is indispensable. Yet he is also chairman of the ruling NRM and principal architect of the political order whose past and future are under discussion. He cannot credibly be both a principal party and the ultimate referee.
His constitutional office must be respected, his views heard, and his cooperation sought. But incumbency cannot confer a unilateral right to set the dialogue’s agenda or dictate its conclusions.
Uganda needs Museveni at the negotiating table, not above it. He should participate as a leader of one political constituency, not as the proprietor of the country inviting others into his political house.
The controversy surrounding premature endorsements of Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba, now questioned even by Ofwono Opondo, further illustrates the unresolved relationship between succession, military influence, and state power. Uganda’s future cannot be determined through competing claims within the ruling establishment. Political succession must remain subject to constitutional processes and the people’s freely expressed will.
Every Voice, Every Proposal
The initiatives associated with Frederick Jjuuko and Sam Tindifa, outlined in A Peoples’ Dialogue, Political Settlements in Uganda and the Quest for a National Conference, and with General Salim Saleh and Ogenga Otunnu, articulated through a proposed Consociational Democracy Agreement, deserve consideration as contributions to a conversation owned by neither group.
Jjuuko and Tindifa advocate grassroots consultations culminating in a representative National Conference. Saleh and Otunnu propose negotiated accommodation through consociational arrangements.
Such arrangements seek to manage divided societies through inclusive coalitions and power-sharing. Yet experience with some negotiated African transitions warns that elite bargains can recycle patronage networks without dismantling coercive structures.
Would power-sharing broaden democratic participation or reproduce elite accommodation? Would it guarantee independent institutions and a politically neutral military, or merely redistribute privileges?
These questions deserve debate, not premature conclusions. Neither initiative should enjoy privileged status because of its proponents, nor be dismissed because of their political histories.
Every Ugandan deserves an equal voice, every serious proposal a fair hearing, and every settlement must respect popular sovereignty.
Let the People Begin Talking
Uganda’s future cannot be reduced to negotiations among prominent personalities behind closed doors.
Political parties, cultural and religious institutions, the legal fraternity, academic institutions, professional associations, trade unions, farmers, women, youth, civil society, and Ugandans abroad must freely formulate proposals.
The unresolved relationship between the central state and indigenous communities—including cultural autonomy, federalism, land, and natural resources—must also be discussed. Communities without monarchies must have an equal voice.
Ugandans do not need permission from any political authority to discuss their future. They need the constitutional freedoms that make such discussion possible. It is ironic that the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU), a pressure group, can hold large mobilisation and endorsement rallies across the country while registered opposition parties encounter police restrictions and tear gas when attempting comparable activities. Constitutional freedoms cannot be administered selectively according to political allegiance.
Arrangements for an eventual National Conference—including independent stewardship, representation, financing, and implementation—should emerge through broad consultation, not unilateral presidential direction.
National dialogue must not demand the surrender of political convictions or become an instrument for absorbing opposition figures into government. It must allow competing political visions to be freely expressed and fairly considered.
The objective must be systemic transformation, not another elite bargain. Uganda must distinguish between changing a president, changing a ruling party, and transforming the political system.
A Settlement With the People
Uganda has endured too many settlements negotiated behind closed doors and imposed upon the population. This generation can pursue one founded upon the freely expressed aspirations of the people.
Let those imprisoned for peacefully exercising political rights be released. Let persecution cease and exiles return safely. Let parties and civic organisations consult freely. Let every serious proposal be heard, regardless of its proponents.
And let Museveni participate alongside other leaders, not as Uganda’s owner or supreme arbiter, but as a stakeholder in its common destiny.
We have suffered enough from settlements negotiated by the powerful and imposed from above. It is time for a settlement forged in the open, negotiated with the people rather than merely for them.
Uganda has spent too long being spoken for. It is time for Ugandans to speak for themselves.
The writer is a senior advocate and former Minister.
We know mwenda Andrew is a maternal uncle to muhoozi, so whatever he talks is to show family rule in uganda. But all know the origin of that family so turning around to saymbu negotiations is looking for away of accepting that family into the country as true to uganda community