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)
MASAKA:Lawyers representing National Unity Platform (NUP) candidate Rose Nalubowa have asked Acting High Court Judge Simon Peter Kinobe to excuse himself from hearing a judicial review application challenging the Masaka City Woman MP election vote recount.
Nalubowa filed the petition in the Masaka High Court, contesting the procedures that led to the recount of votes and the declaration of National Resistance Movement (NRM) candidate Justine Nameere as the winner.
The application, filed under Revisionary Clause Number 1 of 2026, seeks to revise the record of the Chief Magistrate and all related orders, including the declaration of Nameere as winner.
The hearing, which began Wednesday morning with Judge Kinobe presiding, quickly became a courtroom debate over judicial impartiality.
Lawyers for Nalubowa argued that Judge Kinobe’s past political engagement with the ruling NRM raised concerns about bias. Alexander Lule Nkima, one of the counsel, noted that the judge had participated in the 2021 NRM primaries and had publicly defended the party in media appearances.
“We have no information that when you were appointed a judge you resigned from NRM,” Nkima said. “Prior to your appointment, you were an active NRM supporter and antagonistic toward opposition parties, especially the NUP.”
Judge Kinobe, however, rejected calls to recuse himself, insisting that past political affiliations do not automatically imply bias. “For as long as I live as a judge, if I say hi to a person in NRM, I am assumed to be NRM,” he said, adding that judicial independence cannot be judged solely by previous political activity.
The debate highlighted the principle that parties cannot choose their judge and stressed the constitutional right to an independent tribunal. Counsel argued that public perception matters in ensuring trust in the judiciary.
The session also involved procedural discussions, with the judge allowing a brief adjournment for counsel to consult their client, but emphasizing the urgency of the matter.
Alleged Irregularities in the Recount
The revision application challenges the recount process, which Nalubowa’s lawyers say was fraught with procedural errors. Samuel Muyizzi, representing the NUP candidate, argued that the Chief Magistrate erred by conducting the recount outside the mandated four-day period, including over a weekend, and by ignoring his own orders regarding tampered ballot boxes.
Lawyers also raised concerns over the refusal to use the Biometric Voter Verification (BVVK) kit, which could have verified the authenticity of ballots. Muyizzi said this led to the counting of votes that should have been excluded.
“The Chief Magistrate had to personally determine which ballots were valid. That entire process was wrong in procedure,” he said. He added that contradictory rulings in Kalungu West, Bukomasimbi, and Masaka City further undermined the credibility of the recount.
The counsel concluded by reiterating the purpose of the revision application: to ensure that all procedural irregularities and unlawful orders are set aside and that the rightful winner of the election—Nalubowa—is recognised.
The US$15,000 visa bond places travellers under sharper scrutiny as Washington tightens enforcement
COVER STORY | RONALD MUSOKE | When U.S. Ambassador William W. Popp stepped-up to address the press at the American Centre in Kampala on Feb. 5, he was carrying a message that blended diplomacy with warning.
The United States, he said, values its strong partnership with Uganda, rooted in people-to-people ties that see thousands of Ugandans travel to America each year for tourism, business, study and family visits. But that openness now comes with tougher expectations, he said.
“The Trump Administration continues to put America and its interests first by fully enforcing U.S immigration laws and ensuring lawful travel through our visa process,” he said. A non-immigrant visa, he stressed, is a privilege granted for a specific purpose, not a right. It allows a visitor to stay only for an authorised period and only to carry out the activity stated in the application.
Behind the diplomatic language lies a significant policy shift that directly affects Ugandans hoping to travel to the United States. Since July 2025, business and tourist visas issued to Ugandan citizens have been limited to a single entry and are now valid for just three months. Then, on Jan.21, 2026, Uganda was added to an expanded Visa Bond pilot programme. Under this measure, Ugandans who qualify for B-1 or B-2 visas for business or tourism must now post a refundable bond of up to US$15,000 (Approx. Shs 54 million) before their visa is issued.
The bond is returned once the traveller enters the United States, complies with the terms of the visa, and departs on time. But it may be forfeited if the visitor overstays, breaks U.S. laws, or attempts to change status. At the same time, the U.S. Department of State temporarily paused the issuance of immigrant visas for nationals of 75 countries, including Uganda, also effective Jan. 21.
While applications and interviews continue, new immigrant visas are not being issued during this review period. Previously issued immigrant visas remain valid, and the pause does not affect non-immigrant categories such as students, tourists, business travellers or skilled workers. U.S. officials insist the measures are not punitive, nor discriminatory. Instead, they say, they are driven by data and national security concerns.
“The two issues, they’re integrated,” Ambassador Popp explained. Border protection and immigration compliance, he said, are inseparable from national security. “Every sovereign nation wants to know who is visiting, how long they are staying, what they are doing, and when they are leaving. Gaps in that system, especially when people enter for one purpose and stay for another, or fail to depart at all, are treated as security risks.”
A bond designed to enforce compliance
Consular Section Chief, Tania Romanoff, laid out the mechanics of the new bond requirement in blunt terms. Applicants must not pay any bond before their visa interview, she warned, citing fears of scams. Only after a consular officer determines that an applicant qualifies for a B-1/B-2 visa will the bond amount be communicated. Travellers then have up to 30 days to pay, or may delay payment closer to their travel date if their trip is scheduled later.
Once a visitor departs the United States, whether returning to Uganda or travelling elsewhere, the bond is refunded within 30 days. But there are clear red lines. The bond is not returned if the traveller overstays beyond their authorised period, violates U.S. laws, or seeks to change status, even on their first visit.
Romanoff also underscored that entry into the United States does not guarantee a fixed length of stay. That decision is made by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer at the port of entry, who informs the traveller how long they are authorised to remain. Visitors can verify this information online through the I-94 system.
Misusing a visa carries severe consequences while providing false information during an application or interview can result in permanent ineligibility to travel to the United States and possible criminal prosecution in Uganda or the U.S. Those who overstay risk deportation and long-term bans on future travel.
As Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned, violators of U.S. law, including international students, may face visa denial or revocation and removal from the country. While the bond can reach US$15,000, U.S. officials acknowledged that many Ugandans may not have such sums readily available. Romanoff noted that the sponsors of Ugandan travellers including; family members, churches, or business partners in the United States may pay the bond on the travellers’ behalf.
The Statue of Liberty in New York is arguably the U.S’ most recognizable national symbol which signifies freedom and democracy to both American citizens and immigrants who choose to seek new beginnings in the country. Recent changes in the Trump Administration’s visa policy might become prohibitive for many potential visitors and immigrants, including Ugandans. COURTESY PHOTO/WIKIMEDIA COMMONS.
Students, however, are treated differently. They are admitted for the duration of their studies, provided they maintain their status and obey U.S. laws. When they travel home and seek re-entry, they must apply for new visas, but the embassy has introduced priority appointments to help students return to their programmes quickly.
Why Uganda made the list
U.S. officials were candid about why Uganda was included in the visa bond programme. Romanoff pointed to publicly available annual data showing how many Ugandans overstay tourism and student visas. Compliance, she said, is the key benchmark. Washington continuously monitors these figures and evaluates whether travellers are respecting visa conditions.
“We need to see that number go down,” she said. She also revealed another factor drawing scrutiny: the number of Ugandans who enter the United States legitimately and later attempt to change their status.
“In most cases,” Romanoff explained, “applicants arrive intending to do exactly what their visa allows.” But once in the U.S., some change their minds — often influenced by family or community networks that suggest altering one’s immigration status is easy. The volume of Ugandans filing for status changes is “quite high,” she said, and forms part of the data being assessed. This is why U.S. authorities are also urging Ugandan communities in America not to encourage visitors to abandon the terms of their visas, she said.
Ambassador Popp stressed that the policy is about one thing: compliance. If someone applies honestly for tourism or business travel, completes that purpose, and returns within the authorised timeframe, the bond is refunded and legitimate travel continues. Visitors are simply expected to follow the laws of the countries they enter, just as Americans are expected to do when they travel abroad.
Despite the tougher requirements, U.S embassy officials in Kampala say they have not seen a decline in visa applications since the policy changes. Ugandans continue to apply, and some have already participated in the bond programme. Visa bonds, Popp noted, have existed in U.S. immigration law for years and were implemented in several countries before Uganda joined the list.
Uganda steps in to reinforce the message
Sitting alongside U.S. officials at the press conference were senior representatives from Uganda’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a signal that Kampala is backing Washington’s call for compliance.
Margaret Kafeero, the Head of Public Diplomacy in Uganda’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs urged Ugandans to comply with America’s new visa rules. INDEPENDENT/RONALD MUSOKE.
Margaret Kafeero, the Head of Public Diplomacy, said the ministry often receives appeals from Ugandans whose visa applications have been denied or cancelled. The Uganda government, she said, cannot intervene in individual cases. That is why Uganda is urging its citizens to carefully read U.S embassy guidelines, complete applications themselves, and avoid relying on third parties to interpret requirements.
“It only takes a few to ruin it for everybody else,” Kafeero said. Those few, she added, are not strangers; they are relatives, parents, and children. Their actions make it harder for other Ugandans to secure visas.
She said there’s need to be honest in applications and warned that misrepresentation carries consequences. Uganda’s ambassador in Washington D.C., she said, is delivering the same message to Ugandans living and working in the United States.
On the question of the principle reciprocity, Kafeero rejected the idea of automatic retaliation. Reciprocity, she explained, depends on context. Uganda has accepted the information provided by the U.S. in good faith and opted for dialogue rather than knee-jerk responses. If Americans were routinely entering Uganda, overstaying and changing their status, she said, Kampala would have grounds to act. But that is not currently the case.
Evans Aryabaha, the head of Consular Services at Uganda’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, echoed that position. Uganda, like any sovereign state, enforces its own immigration laws. Those who violate them can be arrested, detained and deported.
“The question we are discussing today is because we have many violators from a number of countries, including Uganda,” he said plainly. Aryabaha said the Ugandan government fully endorses the U.S. message: legitimate travel is acceptable and achievable, but only when applicants provide accurate information and respect visa conditions.
The Independent understands Uganda’s embassy in Washington has intensified outreach since mid-2025, holding targeted programmes with students and quarterly meetings with diaspora communities. The focus is education, especially for students who complete their studies and then decide to stay illegally. The core message is simple: remain legal, and respect the hospitality of host nations.
Inside America’s overstay tracking system
The policy changes affecting Ugandans are underpinned by a sophisticated data apparatus detailed in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Entry/Exit Overstay Report 2024. An overstay is defined as a non-immigrant who was lawfully admitted to the United States but remained beyond their authorised period, whether that period is fixed or tied to an activity such as study or training.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) tracks two categories; suspected in-country overstays, where no departure is recorded, and out-of-country overstays, where travellers depart only after their authorised stay expires.
Determining lawful status requires more than simply matching entry and exit records. A visitor may receive an extension, change status, or adjust their immigration category. The DHS systems must account for all of these variables. To do this, the CBP consolidates arrival data, departure manifests, biometric information, and immigration benefit records to build a complete travel history for each visitor.
Air and sea carriers provide advance passenger manifests for all arrivals and departures. At ports of entry, CBP officers inspect travellers, conduct interviews, collect biographic data, and, for most non-immigrants, capture fingerprints and digital photographs. Carriers face fines for missing or inaccurate information.
Departure data is later matched against arrival records, while a separate DHS system integrates information on extensions, student status, and other immigration benefits. Throughout fiscal year 2024, CBP analysts reviewed out-of-country overstay leads daily. Confirmed overstayers may lose visa privileges and face three- to ten-year bars on future admission.
The scale of this operation is vast. Between Oct.1, 2023 and Sept. 30, 2024, the United States recorded 46,657,108 expected departures, nearly 20 percent more than the previous fiscal year. As of Oct. 1, 2024, more than 402,000 individuals had been flagged by DHS vetting systems. Nearly 1.5 million email notifications had been sent to Visa Waiver Programme travellers warning them in advance of the end of their authorised stay, part of a broader effort to improve compliance through awareness.
CBP notes in its report that identifying overstays is central to national security, public safety, immigration enforcement, and the integrity of the immigration benefits system. The visa bond programme now adds a financial layer to this data-driven enforcement strategy.
How Uganda compares regionally
Against this backdrop, DHS data shows how Uganda fits into the broader Eastern African picture. During fiscal year 2024, 9,164 Ugandans were expected to depart the United States, but 601 remained behind, producing an overstay rate of 6.56%.
Tanzania recorded 481 suspected overstays from 6,208 expected departures, an overstay rate of 7.75%. Kenya saw 2,348 people fail to leave on time out of 26,537 expected departures, pushing its rate to 8.85%. Rwanda registered 216 overstays among 4,360 expected departures, or 4.95%.
Countries with smaller traveller volumes sometimes posted sharper percentages. Somalia recorded 43 suspected overstays from just 202 expected departures, an in-country overstay rate of 21.29%. South Sudan counted 11 overstays out of 186 expected departures, or 5.9%, while Burundi reported 42 suspected overstays from 800 expected departures, giving a rate of 5.25%.
Student and exchange visitors present a similar pattern. Out of 1,163 Ugandan students expected to leave the United States, 155 stayed on, an overstay rate of 12.30%. Kenya recorded 437 overstays among 3,612 expected student departures, or 12.1%. Rwanda saw 100 students remain out of 1,404, posting 7.12%.
Somalia’s student figures were particularly stark, with 10 of 40 expected departures turning into overstays, a rate of 25%. South Sudan recorded 24 overstays out of 92 expected student departures, while Tanzania had 131 students remain from 938 expected departures, equivalent to 12.47%. These numbers, U.S. officials say, help explain why Uganda and several of its regional neighbours have been placed under tighter scrutiny.
A shared responsibility
For both Washington and Kampala, the message emerging from the Feb.5 press briefing was one of shared responsibility. The United States is tightening its visa regime, pairing sophisticated tracking systems with refundable bonds designed to deter overstays. Uganda, for its part, is urging its citizens to travel legitimately, tell the truth on applications, and respect the laws of host countries.
Ambassador Popp framed compliance not just as a legal obligation, but as a way to preserve the broader relationship between the two nations. By following visa terms, he said, Ugandan travellers help keep legitimate travel open and strengthen enduring ties. Ugandan officials echoed that appeal, warning that a small number of violators can affect opportunities for everyone else.
At stake is more than access to U.S. visas. It is the credibility of Ugandan travellers abroad, the ease of people-to-people exchange, and the future shape of a partnership now being reconfigured by data, deterrence, and a renewed emphasis on compliance. For Ugandans planning to visit the United States in the near future, the path remains open, but it is narrower, more closely watched, and increasingly unforgiving of those who fail to follow the rules.
When I first wrote this column, on 2nd August 2023, I explained that my choice to write it had been informed by five major considerations:
i) the duty to give back to a country which had already given me so much;
ii) the domination of Uganda’s public square by largely uninformed and sometimes malevolent actors;
iii) the burden on my generation to do our part in building our nation;
iv) as a response to the challenge posed by Dr. Jimmy Spire Ssentongo, Prof Issa Shivji, and others – to academics to play more active roles in national discourses;
and v) as an extension of my pedagogical responsibilities (professional and personal), the column being an additional means by which to offer an alternative view to that which might be found elsewhere.
At the start of 2024, in my column of 17th January of that year, I reiterated these five foundational motivations, and also noted as follows: ‘There might come a time when I feel I have said all I could.
At that point, I promise, I will not overstay my welcome. I am reminded in this sense of a certain Ugandan who a few years ago used to write letters to the editor under the pseudonym “Mbaroraburora” – literally meaning “I just look at you/them” – which apparently signified that person’s state of resignation and despondency regarding the state of affairs in Uganda.
I might, also, get to this point – at some stage. However, one is not entitled to be resigned unless one can genuinely point to their efforts to change the status quo – by the means best available to them.
As an academic, the pen (or computer) is the means best suited for me – and this column continues to be the best mechanism for this contribution.’ Essentially, I was indicating that when I felt there was nothing more to be said, I would stop writing this column. Dear reader, that time has come.
One main development made it clear to me that Uganda has crossed the Rubicon – the appointment of Dr Flavian Zeija as Chief Justice. In the morning of 22nd January this year, Ugandans woke up to the news that Dr Zeija had been appointed Chief Justice of Uganda, to replace Chief Justice Alfonse Chigamoy Owiny-Dollo who had reached the mandatory age of retirement (70 years) on 18th January.
Strangely, it also transpired that the parliamentary vetting and approval of the Chief Justice had already been conducted that morning. It seems as if everything possible under the sun had been done to ensure that no one knew the person so appointed until after the fact.
There is simply no way to sanitize such a grossly illegitimate process – one which brings disrepute to the institution of the judiciary, and calls into great question its ability to dispense true justice.
The Judicial Service Commission (itself certainly irregularly constituted, given the absence of representatives from the Uganda Law Society), which is constitutionally manage the process of identifying suitable candidates to such offices, left Ugandans with more questions than answers, including:
i) How many people applied for the position?;
ii) Who were shortlisted, and why?; and
iii) How many candidates were eventually recommended to the President, and why? A process which is so devoid of transparency, and of the full and active participation of ordinary Ugandan citizens, cannot deliver a Chief Justice who enjoys the trust and confidence of the people of Uganda.
At a time when the judicial branch has come under significant, and justified, scrutiny for its collective failure to fulfil its envisaged role as a co-equal branch of government, willing and able to check the excesses of the executive and legislative branches, the mode of this appointment sends an unmistakable message: the judiciary is now an extension of, and inevitably tainted by, the illegitimacy of the executive and parliament.
The branches of government cannot, and will not, check each other – they will rather act in concert to further entrench Museveni’s military rule. The symbolism, timing and implications of the appointment are unmistakable.
Unfortunately, there are inescapable parallels between Chief Justice Zeija’s appointment and that of Chief Justice George Japheth Masika of the Obote II period. Chief Justice Masika was appointed by Obote’s right-hand man, Paulo Muwanga (the then Chairperson of the ruling Military Commission) to the position in the run-up to the infamous 1980 elections.
Indeed, it was Masika, a dyed-in-the-wool UPC cadre, who swore in Obote as President, following UPC’s ‘electoral victory’. Unfortunately for Masika, when Obote was eventually overthrown in July 1985, he was forced to follow him into exile.
Regrettably, for Chief Justice Zeija, his appointment to that office is distinctly Masika-like in its timing, and in the illegitimacy of the appointing authority. It is no small matter, symbolically, that the Chief Justice of Uganda was sworn in (on Saturday, 24th January), not at the official State House in Entebbe (as his predecessors have usually been) but rather at the President’s private farm in Kisozi, Gomba district.
The Chief Justice’s first order of business was then to constitute a panel of Supreme Court Justices to hear and determine a‘presidential election petition’ filed by a one Robert Kasibante (a presidential candidate who garnered 0.3% of the votes cast, according to the ‘results’ released by the Electoral Commission).
In the event, Kasibante has since applied to ‘withdraw’ his ‘petition’ – leaving the path open for President Museveni to be sworn in by Chief Justice Zeija a few weeks from now.
In a normal situation, it would not be advisable for a jurist to accept appointment to the position of Chief Justice, in circumstances and in a context such as that pertaining to the 22nd January 2026 one.
Indeed, President Museveni has himself consistently condemned lawyers and judicial officers who knowingly make common cause with bad political actors. This was, for instance, the crux of his persistent criticism of the late Benedicto Kiwanuka in relation to his choice to work with Idi Amin.
In this regard, on 27th September 2021, at the 4th Benedicto Kiwanuka Memorial Day (hosted by the Uganda Judiciary), President Museveni noted: ‘I also disagree with Benedicto Kiwanuka. Why would you be Chief Justice in Amin’s government? Everybody should have walked away. Amin did not understand anything. Had everybody walked away, the Amin problem would have been resolved sooner.’
President Museveni repeated this critique the following year, on 21st September 2022, at the 5th Memorial, where he observed: ‘For us we don’t think it was correct for (Ben) Kiwanuka to accept to be chief justice for Amin. You couldn’t talk of judicial independence with Amin. How can Amin say this and you come to the Supreme Court to say the other …’.
The time has come for Ugandan lawyers and jurists to ask themselves similar questions in relation to appointments offered by President Museveni, especially at this time when the legality and legitimacy of his governance is at its lowest point since 1986.
Uganda has just gone through perhaps its strangest ‘election’ since 1995 – one in which the ‘winner’, with ‘72%’ according to the Electoral Commission appears ill-at- ease, perhaps through the knowledge of the means by which this ‘victory’ was procured.
It was a period in which Ugandans saw more soldiers than electoral officials deployed; in which opposition politicians were arrested before and after the polls (in a context where many persons arrested from the 2021 elections remain in prison on remand); the internet shut down; the licences of several NGOs suspended (particularly those working around the areas of governance, human rights and electoral democracy); several people killed and the homes of political actors raided and violated.
Where once the NRM at least pretended at democracy, we appear to now have entered the zone of almost gleeful impunity. The manner of Chief Justice Flavian Zeija’s appointment, in its uncannily shadowy and hurried nature, unfortunately is inextricably linked to this context – of growing impunity borne out of, and magnified by, the illegitimacy of Museveni’s presidency.
It is, tragically, the fruit of an evidently poisonous tree. While there may be circumstances where such fruit might be edible, more often than not, poisonous trees produced poisonous fruit, which in turn produce more poisonous trees. Already, this is proving to be true with respect to the health of the judiciary as an institution.
If anyone had held out hope for a revitalization of the judicial branch under new management, this has already been lost with the failure to extend even the courtesy of an invite to the Uganda Law Society Executive to the opening of the New Law Year earlier this month (prompting the Radical New Bar to justifiably hold a parallel event), and the ongoing prosecution of Male Mabirizi for ‘malicious information’ and ‘hate speech’ against Chief Justice Flavian Zeija and Justice Musa Ssekaana of the Court of Appeal.
In what has now come to be standard fare for the Ugandan judiciary, Mabirizi was casually remanded, with any hope for bail (if at all) being possible at his next appearance before the Buganda Road court on 18th February 2026.
Evidently, far from being over, the era of pre-trial punishment through unreasonable remand periods and unjustifiable refusal to hear and determine bail applications (among several other injustices) appears set to reach new heights.
Similarly, if Justice Esther Kisaakye had hoped for an amicable resolution to her predicament (which itself followed the aborted proceedings in Hon. Robert Kyagulanyi’s 2021 presidential election petition), I am sure the treatment of the ULS and of Male Mabirizi under the ‘new Judiciary management’ has put paid to such expectations.
This dim prognosis for the Judiciary under Chief Justice Zeija is rendered even darker when placed in the context of probable political developments expected over the next few months – particularly movements to position Muhoozi Kainerugaba to replace his father as President, thereby confirming the death of Uganda’s democracy, and concretizing our country’s condemnation to a dynastic ethno-military dictatorship.
By all indications, this seems to be set to be effected by a constitutional amendment in which the country will move from direct presidential elections to a parliamentary system in which the leader of the majority party heads the government.
Seen in this light, the 58-year-old Chief Justice may be set to superintend over the final burial ceremonies of the 1995 Constitution, in the course of the 12-year period between his appointment and projected retirement. In such a context, what value is there in ‘constitutionally speaking’?
How can one speak of, or to, a document which is, by all indications, as dead as a doornail (to borrow Akena Adoko’s description of the 1962 Constitution)? In these circumstances, while I am deeply grateful to the editors of The Observer for having extended to me this important forum over these years, I must now fulfil the promise I made to the readers of this column: to stop speaking the moment it was clear that there was nothing more useful to be said.
