A Discernment and Apostasy watch site for African Saints.
Prove all things..(1 Thesa.5:21)
Test Spirits..(I John 4:1)
Like the Bereans, check whether things are so(Acts 17:11)
In the immediate aftermath of the
Gen Yoweri Museveni-chaired June 29, 2026 first Cabinet meeting of his
newly-constituted government for the 2026–2031 term, Government has come
out to own up to the events of June 28 that saw a dramatic closure of NTV-Uganda, Daily Monitor newspaper and their affiliated media outlets.
The cabinet meeting marks the official
start of implementing the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM)
administration’s agenda for the next five years. According to a release
from the Uganda Media Centre, the meeting follows the swearing-in of the
new administration on June 8, 2026, and a 10-day Cabinet Induction
Retreat held at the National Leadership Institute (NALI), Kyankwanzi.
The retreat which was officially opened by Museveni on June 15, 2026,
was designed to orient both newly-appointed and returning ministers on
government priorities, leadership principles, public service ethics and
the strategic direction of the new administration. It also provided an
opportunity for Cabinet members to align themselves with the NRM’s
development agenda and the government’s strategic priorities for the
2026–2031 term.
The June 30 press statement signed by the
newly-appointed ICT and National Guidance minister, Justine Lumumba
Kasule says military raid and eventual closure of the media outlets were
sanctioned by Gen Museveni, and that “government will inform the public
once the inquiry has been concluded”.
According to the minister, “The events of 28th
June 2026 that led to the disruption of operations at Nation Media
Group were occasioned by a Security-Led Inquiry instructed by HE Yoweri
Kaguta Museveni, President of the Republic of Uganda. The inquiry
involves the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces, the Criminal Investigations
Directorate at the Uganda Police Force, other security agencies and
experts.” The Nation Media Group outlets were closed on June 28 wee
morning. Subsequent of which Museveni’s son, Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba,
the Senior Presidential Advisor on Special Operations who heads the
military and the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU); a political pressure
group, then tweeted, thus; “NTV and Monitor are being shut down today!…Both NTV and Monitor
will not reopen without my permission…In Uganda, I DO NOT believe in a
free press. The press should be guided by cadres of the revolution.”
Yet
more PLU tweets would follow later. In the early morning of June 28,
PLU spokesman, veteran journalist Andrew Mwenda, posted saying PLU
leadership would reopen the media houses. “I have just held discussions
with Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba @mkainerugaba and we, as leaders of PLU, have agreed that we shall reopen both Daily Monitor and NTV soon.
However, we shall first have discussions with the management of both
sister companies. I will inform them when we can have this meeting.”
Always lying in wait, the PLU muscular
statement prompted past-immediate government spokesperson and ruling NRM
MP representing Older Persons from Eastern Uganda, Ofwono Opondo, into
asking who ordered NTV Uganda and Daily Monitor to shut down. Was it PLU of Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba or the NRM government of his father, Gen Museveni? “Was it #PLU or @GovUganda that took the action to close the two media houses? Or maybe let us know if the @NRMOnline
that Ugandans elected on 15th January 2026 is no more, and we just
settle down?” veteran journalist-turned-politician Ofwono Opondo asks.
Uganda went for the general elections in January.
Ofwono Opondo wonders where PLU derives its powers to run affairs of the country and also questions what law NTV Uganda and Daily Monitor
could have broken, arguing that “even if they are accused of bias,
media bias is not, in itself, a criminal offence warranting their
closure”. Ofwono Opondo goes on to ask: “…Is it an offense or crime in
Ugandan law books for a media house or person to be biased against the
state or gov[ernment]? Please cite one.”
The Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Joel Ssenyonyi, addressed the Speaker in the House on the matter on June 30.
“Rt Hon Speaker, you made it clear in your
remarks shortly after being declared Speaker, that the media should be
able to operate freely and those media houses that had been banned from
accessing Parliament eventually returned. Today we see the same media
houses belong[ing] to Nation Media Group being shut down arbitrarily
because they are holding us leaders accountable,” Ssenyonyi told new
Speaker Jacob Marksons Oboth. Oboth’s predecessor, Anita Among, had
banned Nation Media Group from covering Parliament.
“UCC [Uganda Communications Commission]
which is the regulatory body has said it does not know the circumstances
under which the closure happened, but that it will investigate.
Colleague leaders, it is in the best interest of all of us to see that
institutions are functional, and that the rule of law is respected. May
we all,” Ssenyonyi sought to explain, “regardless of our different
political parties, strive to see this happen!”
Museveni’s son-in-law, Odrek Rwabwogo, who
chairs the Presidential Advisory Committee on Exports and Industrial
Development, has so far expressed “extreme worries to the core about the
direction the country is taking”. He asks Ugandans to unite and speak
out. “Uganda’s greatest threats are not always floods, wars, or economic
shocks. Sometimes they are hidden in how we think, lead, execute and
organize ourselves. I share three silent threats Uganda must confront:
Weak execution, Elite disunity and Declining public leadership,”
Rwabwogo said on June 27.
The past weeks have perhaps been among the most intense and
unsettling in Uganda in recent years. Within a remarkably short period
of time, Speaker of Parliament Anita Among – until recently one of the
country’s most powerful political figures – was politically brought down
and placed under house arrest.
Soon afterwards, former Kampala mayor and
opposition lawyer Erias Lukwago was abducted and abused with Muhoozi
Kainerugaba, President Yoweri Museveni’s son and Chief of Defence
Forces, himself posting images of the abuse on social media. Uganda’s
largest independent media house, the Nation Media Group, was taken off
the air after days of increasingly explicit threats by Muhoozi.
Veteran politician Miria Matembe was
arrested days after publicly criticizing Muhoozi and the growing wave of
abductions. Senior journalist Timothy Kaligyera was also abducted over
the past days. Particularly striking throughout these events was that
Muhoozi himself publicly announced, ordered or endorsed many of them
through his social media accounts.
Taken together, they suggest something more than another episode in the increasing use of force in this ‘late Museveni era’.
The removal of Among showed Muhoozi’s ability to neutralise one of the
country’s most powerful political figures, as well as to decide on the
next speaker of Parliament. The events that followed suggested that he
was equally willing to exercise that power more directly, with little
regard for formal state institutions. Has Muhoozi effectively taken
control?
A looming crisis
In order to answer that question, let’s first focus on the context that allowed these events to happen. Earlier this year, I argued in the Journal of Democracy that Uganda
was heading towards a looming political crisis. Over almost four
decades in power, President Museveni has gone to great lengths to
personalise the state around himself. In the last 10 years, this
concentration of power has only deepened, with political decision-making
increasingly confined to an ever-narrower circle in which the first
family occupies a central place.
As Museveni, now 82, has grown older,
maintaining this highly personalised system has become more difficult,
however. This means that important decisions have become increasingly
delegated to trusted insiders, above all Salim Saleh, who today runs
what amounts to a shadow cabinet, but also to Muhoozi.
Muhoozi’s position changed fundamentally
after he became Chief of Defence Forces in 2024. Before then, his
authority still encountered resistance, and on occasion he could be
forced to retreat, as happened after his 2022 tweets threatening to invade Nairobi.
Since becoming CDF, that has no longer been the case. Through a
combination of promotions, reshuffles and anti-corruption campaigns
within the army – some no doubt genuine, others equally useful
politically – he steadily consolidated his hold over the military.
Senior officers associated with the old
guard were pushed into retirement. During the same period, Muhoozi also
became increasingly explicit about his ambition to succeed his father,
something he first openly did in 2023.
Muhoozi did not stand in the January elections, but his presence loomed over them.
Much attention focused on the positions that members of his political
vehicle, the Patriotic League Uganda (PLU), would obtain. The PLU is not
a political party, and alternates between presenting itself as a
vehicle for renewing the NRM and distancing itself from it – but in both
cases presenting itself as an autonomous political organisation centred
on Muhoozi.
Even before the parliamentary and
presidential elections, several outspoken PLU supporters had already
secured influential roles in key party bodies, including the Central
Executive Committee, leading many to expect that the post-election
cabinet would clearly reflect Muhoozi’s – and PLU’s – growing influence.
The eventual cabinet appointments,
however, came as something of an anti-climax. There were fewer Muhoozi
or PLU figures than expected, while close Museveni allies and figures
associated with Salim Saleh – the other major centre of power within the
Ugandan state – retained important positions. This suggested that
Muhoozi’s takeover would be slower than many had anticipated, and that
both Museveni and Saleh still exercised considerable influence over the
government.
The fall of Anita Among and power without institutions
That impression has since been overtaken
by events. The government itself has become increasingly less relevant,
as Muhoozi has shown little hesitation in exercising power directly. The
political neutralisation of former Speaker of Parliament Anita Among
marked an important turning point.
Among had established herself as one of
Uganda’s most influential political figures, building an extensive
network of influence throughout and beyond the state, one that also
rested heavily on corruption (something that was exposed in 2024 during
Agora’s online campaign on corruption in parliament).
During the election campaign, she
campaigned vigorously for President Museveni and was widely expected to
retain her position. In the weeks before the cabinet appointments,
however, Muhoozi and his allies increasingly turned against her,
sometimes in cryptic terms and sometimes quite openly.
Particular attention centred on reports
that she had acquired a Rolls-Royce, prompting Muhoozi to tweet: “I have
been Mzee’s son for 52 years but I have never sat in a Rolls-Royce ever.
I don’t think Mzee has sat in one either.” In another post, he wrote:
“Our job is to serve Ugandans, not ourselves. I cannot support
corruption. I risked my life to make this country peaceful. Now that it
is, it will not be taken by thieves. Never!” On 12 May, PLU publicly
withdrew its earlier support and endorsement for Among. Soon afterwards,
her residences were raided and searched, her vehicle fleet was
impounded, and she has remained under house arrest.
Within Uganda, this was widely perceived as being about control and power, rather than about corruption. Tensions between Among and Muhoozi had existed for some time, with Muhoozi increasingly viewing her as a political rival.
Her subsequent public deference to both Museveni and Muhoozi – including praising them as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
– only underlined how thoroughly she had been politically subdued; but
that didn’t help her: she had become too much of a threat.
The whole episode sent a clear message:
Muhoozi has the power to go after whomever he wants, in whichever way he
wants. Anyone could be a target. At the same time, it showed clearly:
the government or parliament doesn’t seem to matter any more. What
matters is Muhoozi and PLU.
An escalating trend
The trend only intensified in the weeks
that followed. Over the past years, abductions had become an almost
established feature of Uganda’s political landscape, but they largely
targeted supporters of opposition leader Bobi Wine’s National Unity
Platform (NUP) and civil society figures, especially during and after
the election campaign. However cynical it might sound, it did allow many
– locally and internationally – to ignore what was happening.
In recent weeks, however, both the number
and profile of those targeted have changed, extending well beyond the
opposition. The fact that these incidents have occurred in rapid
succession, outside election periods or large-scale protests, has
reinforced the sense that almost anyone could become a target at any
time.
First, there was the abduction and abuse of former Kampala mayor and opposition lawyer Erias Lukwago. Images of a blindfolded Lukwago, his head freshly shaven,
accompanied by triumphant social media posts from Muhoozi, sent
shockwaves through the country. The detention of veteran politician and
human rights advocate Miria Matembe carried an even more powerful
message.
Matembe, a long-time political figure who
was once a close ally of President Museveni, had publicly criticised the
growing wave of abductions and Muhoozi’s expanding political role.
After security personnel raided her home on 24 June, she was detained
four days later. The images of the 72-year-old Matembe,
limping into court while relatives and supporters wept openly, captured
the sense of fear that these arrests have generated. There was also the
deportation of Kenyan senior politician Martha Karua, who was acting as
a counsel for Kiiza Besigye – a deportation Muhoozi claimed to have ordered.
Then there was the closure of the Nation
Media Group, following days of increasingly explicit threats by Muhoozi.
The shutdown took the Daily Monitor, NTV, KFM, Dembe FM and Spark TV
off the air. As the country’s largest independent media house, its
closure deprived Uganda of its most influential independent news
platform and marked a major escalation in the shrinking space for free
media.
Here too, Muhoozi was explicit that he ordered the closure
of the media house – with consent from his father – stating he doesn’t
believe in a free press. In other words, it was Muhoozi who ordered it,
rather than the Uganda Communications Commission or any other formal
regulatory authority. It took the government two and a half days to come
up with a – vague – statement.
Is Uganda experiencing a slow coup?
One question that is on many people’s
minds is whether the country is witnessing a coup. As such, this
question isn’t really new: the control of the army has been increasing
rapidly since Muhoozi took charge; and particularly since the adoption
of the new UPDF Bill in June 2025, which gives far-reaching powers to
the army.
One Ugandan research report called this
“a coup by other means” or “a coup in slow motion”. The events of the
past weeks have given concrete form to that argument – one commentator
captured this emerging political order by describing it as “a military junta with a PR team“.
The removal of Anita Among, and
appointment of the new Speaker of Parliament, already showed that key
political decisions were no longer being taken through the formal
institutions of government. The weeks that followed strengthened that
impression.
Muhoozi directed the closure of the country’s largest independent media house, intervened in decisions concerning the Kampala Capital City Council,
and openly announced or endorsed arrests and detentions. In many of
these cases, legal justification followed only afterwards, if it came at
all.
The installation of the new Secretary General of the Patriotic League Uganda (PLU) offered another illustration. It brought together
a remarkable cross-section of Uganda’s political establishment,
including the Speaker of Parliament, ministers and numerous MPs,
underscoring where many political actors now see the country’s centre of
power. At the same time, the question of whether Uganda is already living under “President Muhoozi” has moved well beyond social media and now features prominently in political debate.
Silence
Perhaps as striking as the events
themselves has been the silence surrounding them. President Museveni has
remained largely absent, while neither the government nor the courts
have meaningfully challenged what has been taking place. Political
authority appears increasingly concentrated around Muhoozi, while the
institutions that would ordinarily provide checks have remained
remarkably quiet.
The same silence extends well beyond the
state. Uganda’s media had already operated for years under growing
pressure and increasing self-censorship, making independent reporting
ever more difficult. The closure of the Nation Media Group has only
reinforced that trend. Foreign journalists have largely left the
country.
There has also been no reaction to the
recent events by any of the major donors – whether one looks at the EU,
US or UK. (As for the US, there was only a tweet by the US Foreign Affairs Committee Chair on social media.)
Religious leaders have largely been incorporated into the system through years of patronage, while the political opposition has largely been neutralized or fragmented. Bobi Wine had to flee the country, and many other opposition figures have faced arrest or intimidation.
Fear therefore has become an equally
important part of the picture. The concern is no longer limited to
political activists or opposition supporters, but increasingly centres
on who may be targeted next. Within public and private debates, there’s
an increasing concern of “saying something wrong”; and there are
increasing concerns of surveillance and tapped phones – reinforced by
the circulation of leaked private phone conversations, including those involving Uganda’s EU ambassador and Minister Kahinda Otafiire.
This marks a profound change from the open
and often vibrant political debate that long characterised Uganda.
Diplomats have likewise remained cautious, given the increasingly
hostile rhetoric directed at several ambassadors over the past years.
Against that backdrop, public criticism
has become increasingly rare. Over the past week, the most notable
intervention came from longtime NRM stalwart and former government
spokesperson Ofwono Opondo, who openly questioned the country’s current
trajectory. Careful criticism has also come from Prince Kassim Nakibinge, the titular head of Uganda’s Kibuli Muslim community and a prominent Buganda royal.
Social media—particularly X—remains one of
the few spaces where political debate continues and civil society
voices can still be heard. Yet the arrest of prominent X user Timothy
Kaligyera under the Computer Misuse Act, together with the police
interrogation of Agora activists, sends a clear warning about the risks
of speaking out.
The first family
Perhaps the most striking reactions have
come from within the First Family itself. In the past week, Museveni’s
son-in-law Odrek Rwabwogo released a video
saying he was “extremely worried to the core about the direction the
country is taking” and calling on Ugandans to unite and speak out.
Perhaps most remarkably, he argued that
President Museveni must be protected “from wrong unthinking characters
who are undermining the greater good (…) no one group should seek to
monopolize him or to pretend to act on his behalf”.
This latter statement was widely perceived
as a clear reference to the influence of Muhoozi and PLU. There has
been a longstanding feud between Muhoozi and Odrek: Muhoozi, for example, called him
‘the biggest thief in Uganda’ on X in 2024. The video seemed like a
last-ditch attempt of Odrek – a long-time competitor of Muhoozi for the
Presidency – to gather political support, and potentially temper
Muhoozi.
Around the same time, Natasha Museveni
– who is very much her father’s “right-hand woman” – released an
emotional video describing Uganda as “going through a difficult period”
and urging people “not to lose hope or become overwhelmed by events”.
While her remarks have to be understood in
the context of the prolonged illness of Janet Museveni, their timing
remains striking, in the current shift of power. A letter attributed to Salim Saleh also surfaced, in which he appeared to offer advice and restraint to Muhoozi in relation to the Lukwago affair.
These developments suggest a number of
things within the first family: concern, a loss of control over the
current events, as well as the difficulty that those around Muhoozi
appear to have in influencing him.
They also point to the further retreat of
President Museveni. His increasingly limited public role has become more
apparent over recent months, a process that appears to have accelerated
with Janet Museveni’s illness. She was last seen in public of March of this year, and it was recently acknowledged that she survived a major health scare.
Speculation about the President’s health
has also intensified, reinforced by comments from Muhoozi ally and
regime insider Andrew Mwenda, who recently described Museveni as “old and exhausted, both intellectually and physically“,
with only a limited ability to oversee the affairs of government.
Whether or not that assessment is accurate, the perception of a
President who is increasingly absent has become an important part of the
current political dynamics.
Who governs Uganda?
The broader question is whether President
Museveni still controls the political system he spent four decades
building. Recent events suggest that the personalized decision-making
structure has increasingly spiraled out of his hands, with Muhoozi
playing a central role – extending his influence over both the UPDF and
the NRM at great speed.
The language increasingly used by his
supporters reflects that confidence. When NRM stalwart Ofwono Opondo
asked whether “the NRM that Ugandans elected on 15 January 2026 is no
more”, the Executive Secretary of the Patriotic League Uganda confidently replied that this indeed was the case. While the message was later deleted, it offered a revealing glimpse into how parts of the PLU now view the political landscape: they are the ones in charge.
The same pattern has become visible
elsewhere. Following the closure of the Nation Media Group, it was not
the responsible ministry or regulatory authority that announced
negotiations over its possible reopening, but Andrew Mwenda, one of Muhoozi’s closest political allies and a leading figure within the PLU.
How far this process will go remains
uncertain. Within broader society and political circles, there’s much
concern about who, or which institution will be next, and how far this
process will go. The concentration of power, the willingness to use it,
and the brazenness of it all point to concerning and troubling times
ahead.
Kristof Titeca is Professor at the Institute of Development
Policy (IOB) at the University of Antwerp, and a Senior Associate Fellow
at the Egmont Institute (Brussels).
