The President was awarded the Order of the Commander-in-Chief, identified in the announcement as the Uganda Prisons Service Medal, in recognition of his leadership in promoting productive capacity, self-reliance and improved welfare within the Uganda Prisons Service.

The award also recognised his administration’s emphasis on national development through local production and import substitution, a strategy aimed at reducing dependence on imported goods while strengthening Uganda’s productive sectors.

The celebrations, brought together national leaders, government officials, security chiefs, invited guests and other dignitaries to commemorate the country’s attainment of independence from Britain on October 9, 1962.

The ceremony combined the traditional commemoration of Uganda’s freedom with recognition of individuals for their contribution to national development, while the President used the occasion to highlight the country’s economic transformation over the past four decades.

Economy grows from $3.9b to $69.3b

Addressing the gathering, Museveni cited the expansion of Uganda’s economy since 1986 as evidence of the progress made under his leadership, while setting an ambitious target for the coming financial year.

“The size of Uganda’s economy was USD 3.9 billion in 1986. By June this year, it had grown to USD 69.3 billion, and by June next year, it will reach USD 73.96 billion,” Museveni said.

The figures placed economic growth at the centre of the Independence Day message, with the President pointing to the expansion of national output as an important measure of Uganda’s development journey.

If the projected figure is achieved, the economy would increase by approximately $4.66 billion from the $69.3 billion reported for June 2026.

The President’s projection comes as Uganda seeks to expand production, strengthen private-sector activity, attract investment and create more opportunities for citizens to participate in the economy.

However, the growth figures also raise broader questions about how economic expansion translates into household incomes, employment, poverty reduction and improved living standards.

For many Ugandans, the significance of the projected growth will ultimately be measured by whether it produces better-paying jobs, more affordable essential goods, improved public services and increased opportunities for businesses.

A scaled-down national celebration

Unlike some previous Independence Day events that have drawn large crowds, the 64th anniversary celebrations were held at State House Entebbe in a scaled-down format, following a Cabinet decision to redirect funds earmarked for national and international celebrations towards other critical priorities.

The decision reflected the competing demands facing the country, where the Government must balance national commemorations with investment in essential services and development programmes.

Nevertheless, the anniversary remained an important moment for reflecting on the meaning of independence, the country’s achievements and the challenges that remain.

The official theme, “Embracing our sovereignty with hope and visionary leadership,” placed emphasis on protecting Uganda’s ability to determine its own future, particularly through economic transformation and domestic production.

The ceremony’s emphasis on productive capacity and import substitution was consistent with the Government’s wider argument that political independence must be supported by economic self-reliance.

For Uganda, that means moving beyond exporting raw materials to processing agricultural products, developing industries, expanding manufacturing and creating employment for a growing population. It also means enabling Ugandan businesses to supply more of the goods consumed locally, reducing pressure on foreign exchange reserves and strengthening the domestic economy.

Museveni among 20 medal recipients

Museveni was among 20 distinguished individuals scheduled to receive national honours during the anniversary celebrations, according to Hajjat Zamina Malole, Chancellor of the Presidential Awards Committee in the Office of the President.

His award, the Order of the Commander-in-Chief (Uganda Prisons Service Medal), was presented in recognition of his leadership and contribution to peace and security, alongside the specific recognition of efforts to promote production, self-reliance and welfare within the prisons service.

The recognition highlighted the role of the Uganda Prisons Service beyond detention and rehabilitation, particularly its involvement in productive activities that can support institutional needs and contribute to national development.

The Government has increasingly emphasised local production as part of its development strategy, encouraging public institutions and private businesses to build domestic capacity rather than depend excessively on imported goods.

The award was also a significant feature of the Independence anniversary because it linked national honours to the broader question of how public institutions can contribute to the country’s economic transformation.

National medals are intended to recognise distinguished service and contributions in different fields. The legal framework governing the honours includes the National Honours and Awards Act, 2001, as amended.  For Museveni, who has led Uganda since 1986, the recognition came as he used the anniversary to review the economic changes that have taken place during his time in office and outline the next phase of the country’s ambitions.

From political freedom to economic sovereignty

Uganda attained independence from Britain on October 9, 1962, with Apollo Milton Obote becoming the country’s first prime minister. The transfer of power marked the end of formal colonial rule and the beginning of self-government.

However, the decades that followed were marked by political instability, military coups and economic difficulties. The overthrow of Obote in 1971 by Idi Amin ushered in a period of repression and economic decline. Amin was removed from power in 1979, while further political turmoil followed before Museveni and the National Resistance Movement took power in January 1986.

Since then, Museveni’s administration has pursued economic recovery, infrastructure development, agricultural modernisation and industrialisation, while promoting private investment and regional trade.

His Independence Day economic figures were intended to demonstrate the scale of the transformation since 1986, when he said the economy was worth $3.9 billion.

The projected increase to $73.96 billion by June 2027 would represent a substantial expansion in the country’s nominal economic output. However, nominal GDP growth does not automatically mean that every household has become wealthier, because population growth, inflation and the distribution of income also influence living standards.

The challenge for policymakers is to ensure that economic growth creates productive jobs, raises incomes and improves access to healthcare, education, electricity, water and other essential services.

The challenge of turning growth into prosperity

Uganda’s economic ambitions are closely linked to the development of its agricultural, industrial and mineral sectors, as well as the emerging oil and gas industry.

The Government has promoted value addition as a way of earning more from locally produced commodities, including coffee and other agricultural exports. Processing more of these products domestically could expand manufacturing, generate employment and improve export earnings.

The oil and gas sector is another major component of the country’s economic strategy. Investments in petroleum production and related infrastructure are intended to establish new sources of revenue and reduce dependence on imported petroleum products over time.

But the pursuit of economic sovereignty also requires stronger domestic enterprises, reliable infrastructure, access to affordable financing and a workforce equipped with the skills needed by modern industries.

Uganda must also address the concerns of small businesses, farmers and young people who want to participate in the country’s growth but continue to face challenges in accessing markets, capital and stable employment.

The President’s $73.96 billion projection therefore provides a target against which the Government’s economic performance will be judged. Beyond the headline figure, citizens will look for evidence that expansion is translating into better livelihoods and broader opportunities.

Independence at 64: Looking ahead

As Uganda marked 64 years of independence, the celebrations provided an opportunity to reflect on the distance travelled since the British flag was lowered and Ugandan leaders assumed responsibility for governing the country.

The national honours, including Museveni’s recognition, formed part of the anniversary’s focus on leadership and public service.

Yet the meaning of independence extends beyond the ceremony and the presentation of medals. It encompasses the ability of Ugandans to produce their own goods, earn decent incomes, participate in public life and determine the country’s economic future.

The Government’s emphasis on self-reliance and import substitution points to one of the central questions facing the country: how to convert political freedom into economic security for its citizens.

Museveni’s forecast that Uganda’s economy will reach $73.96 billion by June 2027 sets out his expectation for the next stage of that journey.

Whether the projected growth delivers lasting prosperity will depend on the quality of investment, the expansion of productive employment, the strength of public institutions and the extent to which the benefits reach ordinary Ugandans.

At 64, Uganda’s independence story is therefore still unfolding — from the achievement of political freedom in 1962 to the continuing pursuit of an economy capable of supporting the aspirations of its people.

Kabalega, who ruled Bunyoro from around 1870 until his capture in 1899, became one of the most formidable African opponents of European imperial expansion. His resistance was not simply a defence of a throne; it was a struggle to preserve the political authority, territory and independence of his kingdom against foreign powers seeking control over the region.

His story fits into a wider national narrative of resistance, political mobilisation and the determination of Ugandans to decide their own future.

In her Independence Day message, Minister in Charge of the Presidency Milly Babalanda reminded Ugandans that freedom was hard-won.

“Fellow Ugandans, Uganda’s independence was not achieved on a silver platter. Long before the Union Jack was lowered on 9th October 1962, our people had resisted foreign domination,” Babalanda said.

Those words capture the significance of Kabalega’s struggle, which unfolded nearly nine decades before Independence.

Born in 1853 to Omukama Kamurasi Kyebambe IV, Kabalega inherited a kingdom facing internal rivalries and growing external threats. After ascending the throne, he embarked on strengthening Bunyoro’s military and rebuilding its regional influence.

He organised the Abarusuura, a formidable fighting force that became central to his resistance. His army drew on fighters from different communities, while the kingdom’s access to firearms and other military resources helped it confront better-equipped foreign forces.

Kabalega was determined that Bunyoro would not become a subordinate territory administered by outsiders.

The battle against Sir Samuel Baker

One of the defining episodes in Kabalega’s resistance occurred in 1872, when British explorer and imperial agent Sir Samuel Baker returned to the region at the head of an expedition backed by Egypt’s Khedive Ismail.

Baker had previously visited Bunyoro during the reign of Kabalega’s father. His subsequent mission, however, involved extending Egyptian authority over the Equatorial Province, an ambition that threatened the kingdom’s sovereignty.

On May 14, 1872, Baker reportedly declared Bunyoro part of the territory he administered in the name of the Egyptian ruler. His actions provoked Kabalega, who viewed the declaration as an attempt to impose foreign authority without his consent.

The confrontation escalated when Baker’s forces raised a foreign flag on Bunyoro territory. Accounts of the conflict describe attacks, retaliation and the burning of Kabalega’s palace at Masindi.

On June 8, 1872, Kabalega’s forces attacked Baker’s troops in Masindi, compelling the expedition to retreat. The confrontation became an early demonstration that foreign military expeditions would encounter determined resistance in Bunyoro.

Baker’s defeat was significant because it frustrated the attempt to incorporate Bunyoro into the Egyptian sphere of influence. It also reinforced Kabalega’s conviction that surrendering political control to foreigners would threaten the survival of his kingdom.

The struggle was not merely against Baker as an individual. It was against an imperial project that sought to extend external control over African territories under the language of exploration, commerce and civilisation.

A long war against British imperialism

Kabalega’s confrontation with Baker was only the beginning of a much longer struggle. As British influence expanded in the region, the kingdom faced growing pressure from colonial officials and military commanders, including Captain Frederick Lugard and forces working to establish British authority.

Britain declared a protectorate over Uganda in 1894, but Kabalega continued resisting its expansion into Bunyoro. His forces used mobility, local knowledge and sustained attacks to frustrate the colonial military campaign.

The war devastated communities, disrupted livelihoods and placed enormous pressure on Bunyoro. Nevertheless, Kabalega continued fighting rather than accept the loss of his kingdom’s independence.

He also formed an alliance with Kabaka Mwanga II of Buganda, another ruler whose opposition to British domination had brought him into conflict with colonial authorities.

The two leaders represented different kingdoms but found common cause in resisting a foreign power determined to reshape their political future. Their alliance became one of the most notable episodes of armed opposition to British expansion in the region.

In April 1899, British forces captured Kabalega and Mwanga. Kabalega was subsequently exiled to the Seychelles, where he spent years away from his homeland.

Even his capture did not erase his place in Uganda’s history. After decades in exile, he was permitted to return, but died in Jinja on April 6, 1923, before reaching Bunyoro.

His life ended far from the kingdom he had fought to defend, yet his resistance became a lasting symbol of the refusal to accept foreign domination.

From Kabalega to the Independence generation

Kabalega was not the only Ugandan leader who resisted foreign domination. His struggle belonged to a wider history of African resistance that included Kabaka Mwanga II, Acholi chief Awich Abok and other traditional leaders who opposed colonial expansion in different ways.

However, armed resistance alone could not defeat the military and political machinery of the British Empire. The struggle gradually evolved, with later generations pursuing political organisation, constitutional change and national independence.

By the 1950s, Ugandan nationalists were increasingly demanding self-government and an end to colonial rule. Political parties, community leaders and activists mobilised support for a sovereign Uganda, culminating in Independence on October 9, 1962.

Apollo Milton Obote, Uganda’s first prime minister, received the instruments of power from the British during the Independence ceremonies. Uganda became a sovereign state, marking the formal end of British colonial administration.

The transition from Kabalega’s battlefield resistance to the political campaign led by Obote illustrates how the struggle for sovereignty changed over time. One generation fought to prevent foreign conquest; another organised politically to end colonial rule.

Independence did not, however, end Uganda’s difficulties. Political instability, military coups, civil conflict and economic challenges continued to test the country.

Idi Amin seized power in 1971, overthrowing Obote’s government. Amin’s rule was characterised by severe repression, killings and economic disruption. His overthrow in 1979 was followed by further instability, including Obote’s return to power in 1980 and the guerrilla war that brought Yoweri Kaguta Museveni’s National Resistance Movement to power in 1986.

Museveni’s rise was rooted in a different historical setting from Kabalega’s nineteenth-century resistance. Nevertheless, both episodes are part of Uganda’s continuing debate about sovereignty, political authority, national security and the country’s right to determine its own direction.

Museveni and the unfinished business of Independence

At the 64th Independence anniversary celebrations, President Museveni awarded national honours to distinguished individuals in recognition of their service and contributions to the country.

The ceremony provided an opportunity to reflect on the sacrifices of earlier generations and the responsibilities of those entrusted with governing Uganda today.

Yet Independence is not measured solely by the absence of foreign rule. It also raises questions about whether citizens can overcome poverty, access opportunities and exercise meaningful control over their economic futures.

Addressing the country’s development challenges, Museveni acknowledged shortcomings in Operation Wealth Creation, a programme intended to help households move into productive economic activity.

“I had to send the army to go and beg people to get out of poverty. We have to plead with the poor to get out of poverty,” Museveni said in his Independence Day address.

The President also acknowledged that some soldiers involved in implementing Operation Wealth Creation had made mistakes, explaining that these shortcomings informed the introduction of the Parish Development Model.

The Parish Development Model was designed to help households move from subsistence production into the money economy by directing development support through parish-level structures.

Museveni’s remarks highlight a challenge that remains central to Uganda’s independence: political sovereignty must translate into better living conditions for ordinary citizens.

For a country whose early resistance heroes fought to protect their communities and livelihoods, the persistent struggle against poverty remains an important measure of national progress.

The President’s acknowledgement of shortcomings also raises questions about accountability, the effective use of public resources and whether government programmes are reaching the people they are intended to serve.

Remembering the sons and daughters of Uganda

Kabalega’s legacy offers an important lesson about the relationship between national pride and historical memory.

His resistance came at enormous personal and national cost. Bunyoro suffered destruction, territorial losses and the weakening of its political institutions. Yet his determination to defend his kingdom ensured that his name survived as a symbol of defiance against imperial expansion.

On June 8, 2009, President Museveni declared Kabalega a national hero, formally recognising his contribution to Uganda’s history.

That recognition placed Kabalega among the figures whose sacrifices helped shape the country’s national identity.

The story also reminds Ugandans that resistance was not confined to kings and military commanders. It included communities that defended their land, political activists who challenged colonial rule, and ordinary citizens who supported the campaign for self-government.

Uganda’s history must therefore be understood as a collective journey rather than the achievement of one individual or political movement.

Kabalega’s battlefield resistance, Obote’s role in the Independence transition and Museveni’s leadership since 1986 belong to different periods, with distinct circumstances, achievements and controversies. They should not be treated as identical struggles. But each period raises questions about who governs Uganda, whose interests government serves and how national sovereignty should benefit its people.

As the country celebrates its Independence anniversary, Kabalega’s example remains a reminder that freedom carries obligations. It requires protecting the country’s sovereignty, preserving its historical memory, strengthening public institutions and ensuring that economic progress reaches the population.

More than six decades after the Union Jack was lowered, Uganda’s independence story remains unfinished in the eyes of citizens still seeking jobs, better public services and relief from poverty.

The challenge for modern leaders is to ensure that the freedom defended by earlier generations becomes meaningful in the daily lives of Ugandans.

From Kabalega’s resistance in Masindi to the lowering of the Union Jack in 1962, the central lesson remains that a nation’s dignity lies in its ability to determine its own future.

The celebrations, held under the theme “Embracing Our Sovereignty with Hope and Visionary Leadership,” will be conducted on a scaled-down and largely virtual basis, with a limited number of guests physically attending at State House. The decision to scale down the celebrations was linked to a Cabinet decision to redirect funds that would otherwise have been spent on national and international celebrations to other priorities.

But beyond the ceremonies, medals and speeches, Independence Day provides an opportunity for Ugandans to look back at a remarkable and often turbulent journey that began on October 9, 1962, when the Union Jack was lowered and the Ugandan flag raised as the country assumed responsibility for its own affairs.

Museveni among the 20 medalists

The highlight of this year’s celebrations will be the presentation of national honours to 20 medalists, with President Museveni himself among those to receive an award. According to Hajjat Zamina Malole, Chancellor of the Presidential Awards Committee in the Office of the President, Museveni will receive the Order of the Commander-in-Chief (Uganda Prisons Service Medal).

The award recognises his leadership and contribution to peace and security. The Presidential Awards Committee says the medal is intended for heads of State and heads of government in recognition of visionary leadership and their contribution to peace and security in Uganda, the East African region and Africa. The award is provided for under the National Honours and Awards Act, 2001, as amended.

Museveni’s recognition adds a remarkable dimension to an Independence anniversary that traces the country’s history from its first Prime Minister, Apollo Milton Obote, to the longest-serving president in Uganda’s post-independence history.

The President came to power in January 1986 after the National Resistance Army captured Kampala following a five-year guerrilla war. Forty years later, he remains head of State.

The night Uganda became independent

Uganda’s independence was the culmination of years of constitutional negotiations, political mobilisation and demands for self-government. Uganda had been a British Protectorate since 1894. By the late 1950s, pressure for greater African participation in government had intensified.

The first direct elections to the Legislative Council were held in 1961. The Democratic Party, led by Benedict Kiwanuka, emerged as the largest party, while Obote’s Uganda People’s Congress became the main opposition. However, Buganda had boycotted the elections and insisted on an arrangement that allowed its Lukiiko to nominate its representatives.

Fresh elections were therefore held in 1962. The UPC won 37 seats, DP 24, while Buganda’s Kabaka Yekka representatives held 21 seats. UPC and KY subsequently formed an alliance, giving Obote the numbers to form the first Independence Government.

And so, on October 9, 1962, at Kololo Airstrip, the instruments of power were handed to the 36-year-old Obote on behalf of the new government. The ceremony marked the formal end of British colonial rule. Obote, who had become executive Prime Minister, called for unity and optimism in his Independence address.

“With the goodwill of all who wish to see her prosper, Uganda will go forward from strength to strength.” He urged Ugandans to look forward to their new responsibilities as a sovereign country. The symbolism of that day was immense. The British flag came down and Uganda’s national flag went up. For millions of Ugandans, political power had formally moved from the colonial administration to Ugandan hands.

Sir Edward Muteesa II, the Kabaka of Buganda, became Uganda’s first President under the new constitutional arrangement, while Obote served as Prime Minister and head of government. In his Independence message, Muteesa spoke of the significance of the moment and appealed to Ugandans to work for the country.

He noted that the British had “relinquished power into our hands” and called on citizens to work with all their might for the glory of the kingdoms and the State of Uganda. He also warned against allowing differences of nation, religion and colour to divide Ugandans. Those words would acquire greater significance as the young country entered one of the most difficult political periods in its history.

From optimism to the 1966 crisis

The first years of independence were dominated by tensions between the central government and Buganda. The UPC-KY alliance that had helped deliver independence gradually broke down. By 1966, the relationship between Obote and Muteesa had deteriorated into an open constitutional and political confrontation. Obote suspended the 1962 Constitution and ordered an attack on the Kabaka’s palace at Mengo. Muteesa fled into exile.

The following year, Obote introduced a new Constitution that transformed Uganda into a republic, abolished the traditional kingdoms and concentrated greater powers in the presidency. The promise of a peaceful constitutional transition had therefore given way to political confrontation.

The Amin years

On January 25, 1971, Obote was overthrown by his army commander, Idi Amin. Amin’s eight-year rule became one of the darkest chapters in Uganda’s history, characterised by killings, disappearances, repression, economic collapse and the expulsion of the Asian community.

The period also demonstrated how fragile the institutions inherited at Independence had become. In 1978, Amin’s forces invaded Tanzania’s Kagera region. Tanzania responded militarily, and Ugandan exiles joined the counter-offensive. Kampala fell in April 1979 and Amin fled the country.

The revolving door of presidents

The fall of Amin did not immediately produce political stability. Uganda entered another period of rapid leadership changes. Yusuf Kironde Lule became president in April 1979 but served only 68 days, the shortest presidency in Uganda’s history. He was removed after disagreements with the National Consultative Council.

Godfrey Lukongwa Binaisa succeeded Lule in June 1979. A lawyer and former Attorney General, Binaisa inherited a country struggling with insecurity, political divisions and institutional weakness. He remained in office for less than a year.

Binaisa captured the mood of the period when he said: “No one tribe or section will ever dominate Uganda. The UNLF is our last chance.” His government, however, also collapsed amid political and military tensions. Paul Muwanga subsequently headed the Military Commission, the transitional authority that organised the 1980 elections.

Those elections returned Apollo Milton Obote to power in what became one of the most disputed electoral contests in Uganda’s history. Obote’s second government faced rebellions, economic difficulties and growing political opposition. In 1981, Museveni’s National Resistance Army launched a guerrilla war in the Luwero Triangle.

The conflict devastated communities and deepened Uganda’s political and ethnic divisions. In July 1985, Obote was overthrown by the military and Gen Tito Okello Lutwa became president. Okello’s brief administration sought to negotiate with the NRA, but the talks failed. When he was sworn in, Okello acknowledged the importance of popular legitimacy, saying: “We realize the will of the people is the basis of government.” But the war continued.

The 1986 turning point

On January 26, 1986, Museveni’s NRA captured Kampala and ended the Okello government. Four days later, on January 29, Museveni was sworn in as President on the steps of Parliament. His inaugural words became one of the defining statements of Uganda’s post-independence history:

“No one should think that what is happening today is a mere change of guard: it is a fundamental change in the politics of our country.” He promised the restoration of democracy, security and a political system in which government would serve the people rather than dominate them.

The new government embarked on a programme of reconstruction after years of political violence and economic decline. The 1995 Constitution established a new constitutional framework, while the restoration of multiparty politics later opened another chapter in Uganda’s political development.

40 years of the Museveni era

Museveni has now governed Uganda for more than four decades, making his administration by far the longest continuous government since Independence. His supporters credit the NRM government with restoring relative stability, rebuilding infrastructure, expanding education and health services, attracting investment and maintaining macroeconomic stability.

His government has also faced criticism over the concentration of political power, the conduct of elections, restrictions on opposition politics and questions surrounding the role of the military in politics. Nevertheless, the stability of the past four decades represents a significant departure from the rapid succession of governments that characterised Uganda between 1962 and 1986.

At last year’s Independence celebrations, Museveni said peace remained the foundation of Uganda’s progress, saluting Ugandans and the UPDF for maintaining stability. The President has repeatedly linked Uganda’s future to economic transformation, arguing that political independence must ultimately be matched by economic independence. That argument reflects the changing meaning of Independence itself.

In 1962, independence largely meant freedom from colonial political control. Today, the debate has expanded to include economic sovereignty, industrialisation, employment, technological development, food security and Uganda’s ability to determine its own economic destiny.

The presidents who shaped Uganda at 64

Uganda’s 64-year journey can also be read through the leaders who occupied the highest office. Sir Edward Muteesa II (1962–1966): The Kabaka of Buganda became Uganda’s first President under the Independence Constitution. His presidency ended during the 1966 constitutional crisis and he went into exile after the attack on the Lubiri.

Apollo Milton Obote (1966–1971; 1981–1985): Uganda’s first executive Prime Minister became president after the 1966 crisis and later returned to power after the 1980 elections. His two administrations were marked by major political and military upheavals.

Idi Amin Dada (1971–1979): Amin seized power in a military coup and ruled for eight years. His government became synonymous with repression, disappearances and economic dislocation. Yusuf Kironde Lule (1979): The first post-Amin president served for only 68 days before being removed by the National Consultative Council.

Godfrey Lukongwa Binaisa (1979–1980): A lawyer and former Attorney General, Binaisa presided over a short-lived transitional government before being removed from office. Paul Muwanga (1980): He headed the Military Commission during the transition to the 1980 elections and is included in official historical accounts of Uganda’s post-independence leadership.

Apollo Milton Obote (1981–1985): His second administration was confronted by the NRA insurgency and other armed rebellions before he was overthrown in July 1985. Gen Tito Okello Lutwa (1985–1986): Okello took power through a military coup but was defeated by the NRA in January 1986. His administration lasted only about six months.

Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (1986–present): Museveni took power after the NRA victory and has since overseen the longest continuous presidency in Uganda’s history. His era has been defined by relative political stability, economic reconstruction, infrastructure expansion and an enduring debate over democratic governance and political succession.

From political independence to the next generation

At 64, Uganda stands far removed from the country that gathered at Kololo in 1962 to receive the instruments of power from Britain. The country has survived coups, wars, constitutional crises, economic collapse, insurgencies and major political transitions. Yet the central question of Independence remains remarkably similar: what does it mean for Ugandans to control their own destiny?

Obote’s call in 1962 for Uganda to go “from strength to strength”, Muteesa’s warning against division, Okello’s acknowledgement that government derives legitimacy from the people, and Museveni’s 1986 promise of “fundamental change” all speak to different moments in that long journey.

Friday’s celebrations at State House Entebbe will therefore be more than a commemoration of the lowering of the Union Jack 64 years ago. They will be a reminder of a country that began its independent life with a coalition government, passed through years of turmoil, and eventually entered a prolonged period of stability.

And as Museveni joins the 20 medalists being honoured, Uganda will once again be invited to reflect not only on the achievements of its leaders, but also on the unfinished work of Independence: building a sovereign, prosperous, peaceful and united nation whose citizens can determine their political and economic future. After 64 years, the journey continues.

In a statement issued on Wednesday, Electoral Commission chairman Justice Simon Byabakama Mugenyi said the Commission had completed the determination of a number of complaints arising from the LC1 elections and had consequently taken decisions to repeat elections in the affected areas.

“After the conclusion of the said elections, the Electoral Commission received several complaints challenging the results declared in some villages/cells in various parts of the country,” Byabakama said. He said the Commission was acting under Article 61(1)(d) of the Constitution, which gives it the mandate to ascertain and declare election results.

Two dates for reruns

According to the Commission’s official list, the first batch covers dozens of villages and cells across different parts of the country. The elections will be held on Thursday, October 15, and Monday, October 19, 2026. The Commission said further batches would be announced after more complaints are determined. The affected areas include parts of Kampala, Wakiso, Mukono, Lwengo, Kayunga, Kagadi, Iganga, Mayuge, Jinja City, Lira City, Isingiro and Buikwe.

The Commission’s published list includes Kanyamunyu in Kagadi, Kirindi in Kayunga, several villages in Lwengo and a large number of villages and cells in Kampala and Wakiso. In Kampala, repeat elections are scheduled for areas including Kiyindi, Nkrumah, Kasaato, Mugalu, Lugoba, Nalwewuba, Soweto, Kakungulu, Ssembalanga, Diplomat, Katabira, Lusaze and Mbaawo.

Wakiso accounts for another large block of the affected areas, including Bulaga, Lugeye, Abayita Ababiri, Kitende A, Bulamu Deputy, Luteete A, Buwambo, Kabuuma, Kibiri A, Kasokoso, Nakiyesanja, Masajja-Kibira B, Ndikuttamadda, Bongole and Nakuwadde. Other affected areas include Buseyi B and Nampirika A in Iganga, Kiloowa in Jinja, Wankonge in Mayuge, Kaitabawala in Jinja City, Ogengo in Lira City and Kakyeka in Isingiro.

The EC’s published document, however, currently lists 53 administrative units, despite the broader announcement referring to 54 villages. The Commission may therefore have made a subsequent adjustment or one entry may be missing from the published list.

What went wrong?

The decision to conduct fresh elections comes after the July 28 nationwide LC1 elections, which were conducted in more than 71,000 villages. The polls were largely completed successfully, but the Commission earlier reported that voting could not take place or could not be completed in 1,135 villages. Byabakama attributed the disruptions to several factors, including interference, chaos and violence, destruction of election materials, tied results, disputes over voters’ registers and the death of nominated candidates.

In some places, voters whose names were not on the Village Residents Register presented national identity cards and demanded to vote. When they were turned away, the Commission said some of them disrupted the polling process. The latest reruns, however, are not limited to places where polling completely failed. They also involve areas where the Commission subsequently received complaints and was unable to ascertain the declared results.

Contestants demand justice

Some of the contestants affected by the disputed elections had complained of irregularities shortly after the July polls. In Abayita Ababiri, Wakiso, former LC1 chairperson Abbey Ssebowa challenged the manner in which the vote was counted and later welcomed scrutiny of the election. Ssebowa claimed that polling officials abandoned the physical counting of people lined up behind candidates and instead used entry slips to determine the result.

“We had three lines of people behind me while my opponent had only one line. We patiently waited for more than 20 minutes to be counted in line to no avail,” Ssebowa said after the July election. He alleged that officials subsequently collected the entry slips used by residents to access the polling area. “Losing an election is normal, but subverting the law is unacceptable,” Ssebowa said.

His allegations could not independently be verified at the time, but Abayita Ababiri has now been placed on the Commission’s official list for the October 15 repeat election. Another contestant, John Chrysestom Luboobi, a former chairperson of Nkumba–Bufulu village, also alleged interference during the July election. He claimed that non-residents were brought into the area to influence the vote.

In another affected contest, Stanley Nsubuga, the former chairperson of Kabale A, Tadeo Zone, claimed that officials failed to record the results he said he obtained on the official declaration form. Nsubuga said he had received 261 votes while his rivals Bosco and Balak Jjingo received 161 and 42 votes respectively. “We were very peaceful until the army came in and started disrupting voters,” he alleged.

The Electoral Commission did not endorse the allegations. At the time, EC spokesperson Julius Mucunguzi urged aggrieved candidates to use the formal complaints process. “It is within the rights of anybody—whether a voter or a candidate—if they have reason to believe that whatever was done was not consistent with the law, to raise that complaint formally in writing to the commission,” Mucunguzi said.

Byabakama warns candidates

Byabakama has now urged candidates, voters and other stakeholders in the affected villages to prepare for the fresh elections and respect the electoral laws. “The Electoral Commission calls upon all stakeholders, including candidates, voters and other interested parties in the affected villages/cells, to take note of these arrangements and comply with the applicable electoral laws and guidelines,” he said.

The chairman said the Commission would continue handling complaints from other villages and communicate its decisions as they are made. He also stressed that where the Commission had already examined a complaint and upheld the original election outcome, the decision had been communicated to the relevant parties and returning officers. The reruns are therefore not a general reopening of all LC1 elections, but a targeted intervention in villages where the Commission says the electoral outcome could not be lawfully established.

Open voting remains

The rerun elections will follow the same LC1 voting system used during the July polls. Unlike presidential and parliamentary elections, LC1 chairpersons are elected through the lining-up method, in which voters physically position themselves behind their preferred candidates or their representatives. The Commission had earlier reminded stakeholders that polling at village level is conducted in a public or open place, with voters lining up behind nominated candidates, their representatives, portraits or symbols, in accordance with the Local Governments Act.

This method has repeatedly generated disputes because candidates and their supporters can see where voters have lined up. The October reruns will therefore be closely watched, particularly in Kampala and Wakiso, where several of the disputed elections have attracted complaints. For residents in the affected villages, the repeat polls provide another opportunity to choose their local leaders and give the Commission an opportunity to produce results that can withstand scrutiny.

For the EC, the challenge will be to ensure that the second round is conducted peacefully, transparently and strictly according to the law. The Commission said subsequent repeat elections would be announced after it concludes consideration of the remaining complaints.

The four-day conference, which ran from October 5 to 8, brought together defence chiefs and senior military leaders from across Africa, as well as representatives of the African Union, regional security organisations and commanders of United Nations and African Union peace support missions.

The meeting was convened against the backdrop of a rapidly changing security environment in which African militaries are increasingly being called upon to respond to threats that do not necessarily involve conventional warfare. These include terrorism, organised crime, cyber warfare, climate-related emergencies, pandemics, natural disasters, border insecurity, piracy, attacks on critical infrastructure and the growing use of artificial intelligence and unmanned systems.

Security and economy

Museveni told the defence leaders that military strength must be supported by a strong economy and a stable political environment. “A country cannot have a strong and safe defence force without a strong economy,” he said. He urged African countries to concentrate on wealth creation through commercial agriculture, industry, services and information and communication technology, while expanding markets through the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and regional integration.

For Museveni, the message was that military solutions alone cannot guarantee lasting security. He said security and prosperity were mutually reinforcing, arguing that countries with stronger economies and integrated regional markets are better positioned to finance capable defence forces while reducing conditions that fuel instability.

The President also told the military leaders that African defence forces must adapt to emerging, non-traditional security threats and contribute to peace and national development. He thanked the visiting defence chiefs, intelligence chiefs and force commanders for attending the conference in Uganda and wished them a pleasant stay.

Why the army chiefs met

The conference was designed to address a growing gap between the traditional military doctrine of preparing for conventional war and the realities confronting African states. Lt Gen Jack Bakasumba, the UPDF Chief of Joint Staff, said Africa’s security environment had shifted from predominantly state-to-state warfare to a complex mixture of conventional and non-conventional threats.

He listed terrorism and violent extremism, organised crime, cyber warfare, climate-related insecurity, competition over natural resources, economic sabotage, illicit financial flows, public health emergencies, artificial intelligence, unmanned systems, piracy and attacks on critical infrastructure among the threats confronting the continent.

The conference therefore sought to establish how African militaries can operate more effectively when crises require military support but do not amount to conventional war. Such operations can include peace support, disaster response, humanitarian assistance, protection of critical infrastructure, counter-terrorism, border security, support to civil authorities and responses to epidemics.

Uganda has itself used the UPDF in several such situations, including peace support operations, disaster management and responses to epidemics.

From talking to action

Bakasumba warned that Africa’s biggest challenge was no longer simply identifying the threats but developing a coordinated response. He called for standardisation of military procedures, joint training, coordinated procurement, improved intelligence sharing, common communications systems and rapidly deployable capabilities.

“We gather here today with a shared belief that Africa must strengthen African-led, practical and coordinated responses to these emerging threats,” Bakasumba said. The organisers said the conference was intended to go beyond speeches and policy discussions by producing mechanisms that can be incorporated into military doctrines and standard operating procedures.

The proposed areas include early-warning systems, joint communications, intelligence sharing and deployable capabilities. The conference was attended by representatives from more than 18 countries, according to the organisers, while the original programme had anticipated defence chiefs from 14 African countries, alongside peace support mission commanders and continental and regional security bodies.

Muhoozi pushes military adaptation

UPDF Chief of Defence Forces Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba, who hosted the conference, also called on African militaries to adjust their structures, training and equipment to meet the changing nature of warfare and security threats. For Uganda, he said, the broader objective is to develop professional, adaptable and technologically capable armed forces capable of protecting national sovereignty while contributing to peace, stability, prosperity and human security.

The conference was also an opportunity for military chiefs to exchange experiences and examine how individual countries have handled operations outside conventional warfare. The UPDF said the gathering was intended as a continental platform for institutional introspection and practical discussions on military operations other than war. Maj Gen Richard Otto, the Chief of Defence Intelligence and Security, said the changing strategic environment required African countries to learn from one another and synchronise their responses.

Intelligence takes centre stage

The importance of intelligence was also emphasised during the conference. Deputy CDF Lt Gen Sam Okiding said intelligence-led operations were increasingly central to responding to terrorism, transnational organised crime, irregular migration, humanitarian crises and climate-related threats.

He called for African militaries to modernise their equipment, revise training approaches and fundamentally rethink how they prepare for operations beyond conventional warfare. Okiding said the conference should not end with resolutions but should produce practical measures that can be implemented nationally, regionally and continentally.

Technology and new threats

Technology emerged as another major area of concern. The conference examined cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and unmanned aerial systems, reflecting the growing role of technology in both military and non-military security operations. African militaries are increasingly required to deal with cyber-attacks, misinformation, surveillance, drone technology and attacks on critical infrastructure alongside conventional security threats.

The agenda also covered climate change, disaster management, natural resource management, maritime and border security, disease pandemics, environmental security, external influence and legal and ethical accountability. The involvement of commanders from missions such as the African Union Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia, the UN peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo and UNISFA in Abyei provided an opportunity for countries to draw lessons from ongoing African peace and security operations.

Strengthening African cooperation

Beyond the technical military discussions, the summit provided an opportunity for bilateral engagements between defence chiefs. On the sidelines of the conference, Gen Kainerugaba held talks with his South African counterpart, Gen Rudzani Maphwanya, focusing on strengthening military relations between Uganda and South Africa, including training and exchange programmes.

The wider objective, however, was to build a common African approach to security. The organisers argued that many of the threats confronting African countries do not respect national borders and therefore cannot be effectively addressed by individual countries acting alone. Terrorist networks, organised crime, cyber threats, epidemics, climate emergencies and illegal movement across borders can quickly spread from one country to another.

The conference therefore sought to strengthen African-led cooperation while supporting existing mechanisms under the African Union, regional economic communities and United Nations peace support structures. For Museveni, however, the military response must remain part of a broader national and continental development strategy.

His closing message placed economic development, political cohesion, regional integration and military preparedness within the same security equation. The inaugural conference thus ended with a challenge to African militaries: prepare not only for the wars of yesterday, but also for the complex crises of tomorrow—and ensure that military power contributes to a more secure and prosperous continent.

The Congolese music star, his band and entourage were scheduled to perform at Northern Pearl Hotel in Gulu on Friday, October 9, as part of Uganda’s 64th Independence Day celebrations. The postponement has left fans disappointed, with some demanding answers from the organisers on whether tickets already purchased will be refunded or retained for a rescheduled show.

Health ministry raises alarm

The Ministry of Health issued its advisory on October 7, warning organisers about the prevailing Ebola situation in parts of the DRC. Health Minister Dr Chris Baryomunsi said the government was particularly concerned about events capable of attracting large numbers of people across international borders.

“Whereas the Ministry has not imposed a general prohibition on public gatherings, the ongoing Ebola situation in the general areas of Ariwara, Aru and several other provinces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo requires heightened vigilance in relation to large events likely to generate substantial cross-border movement,” Dr Baryomunsi said.

The minister’s statement makes clear that the intervention was not intended as a general restriction on concerts, entertainment activities or other public gatherings. Instead, authorities are focusing on the specific circumstances surrounding the Gulu concert and the possibility that it could attract fans travelling from areas of the DRC where health authorities remain concerned about Ebola.

Fans caught off guard

For music lovers who had already bought tickets and made travel arrangements, the postponement came as a major disappointment. Kofi Olomide enjoys a substantial following in northern Uganda, with fans from Gulu, Arua, Lira and other towns expected to travel to the concert. Some fans had also reportedly planned to travel from across the border to watch the Congolese star perform.

Dan Anguzo, an ardent Kofi Olomide fan from Arua, said fans who had already paid for tickets were now concerned about their money. “Some of us have made payments. Are they going to refund?” Anguzo asked. His concern is shared by other fans who had already made arrangements for transport and accommodation ahead of the show.

Another fan said the health concerns should be respected but urged the organisers to provide clear information on the financial implications of the postponement. “We understand the Ebola threat and nobody wants to put people at risk, but many people had already paid for transport and tickets. The organisers need to tell us what happens next,” the fan said.

Cross-border movement at centre of concern

Northern Uganda has extensive commercial, social and family links with neighbouring countries, including the DRC. Movement across the region is common, with people crossing borders for trade, family obligations, business and entertainment. The Ministry of Health is particularly concerned that a major concert featuring a popular Congolese musician could become a magnet for thousands of people travelling from different areas.

Unlike an ordinary local gathering, the Kofi Olomide concert was expected to attract an international audience because of the musician’s popularity across the Great Lakes region. This is what appears to have prompted the ministry to intervene before the event could take place.

Not a ban on public gatherings

Dr Baryomunsi stressed that the government had not imposed a blanket ban on public gatherings. The minister’s position is that Uganda’s health authorities are exercising caution in relation to events that could facilitate substantial cross-border movement from areas affected by Ebola. This means other concerts and public events are not automatically affected by the advisory. The decision is instead aimed at limiting circumstances that could potentially allow an infectious disease to be imported into the country.

Independence celebrations disrupted

The cancellation has also disrupted entertainment plans surrounding Uganda’s 64th Independence Day celebrations. The Gulu concert was expected to be one of the major entertainment events marking the October 9 celebrations, with Olomide’s appearance generating considerable excitement among music lovers.

His postponement has now left fans waiting for a new date. Olomide is one of the most recognisable figures in African rumba and soukous music and has maintained a strong following across Uganda and the wider Great Lakes region. His concerts typically attract fans beyond the immediate location of the performance, making the prospect of cross-border attendance particularly significant for health authorities.

What happens to the tickets?

The immediate question for fans is whether the concert will simply be postponed or cancelled altogether. Ticket holders are also waiting for guidance on refunds. Anguzo said fans who had already made payments deserved clarity from the organisers. The health ministry’s advisory does not necessarily mean that the concert can never take place.

Rather, the intervention is linked to the current health situation and the risks associated with large-scale cross-border movement. This leaves open the possibility of the concert being rescheduled when health authorities determine that the risk has reduced.

Health before entertainment

For the Ministry of Health, the decision reflects the delicate balance between allowing entertainment and protecting the public during a disease outbreak. Large gatherings can bring together people from different communities and countries within a confined space, creating additional challenges for disease surveillance and response. In the case of the Gulu concert, authorities appear particularly concerned about the movement of people from Ebola-affected or high-risk areas of the DRC into Uganda.

For fans, the postponement means missing an eagerly awaited performance. For health officials, however, the priority is preventing a potential health threat from crossing Uganda’s borders. As fans wait for organisers to announce the next step, the Kofi Olomide concert has become an example of how public health concerns can suddenly reshape major entertainment events. The music may have been postponed, but the questions from fans — particularly over refunds and a new concert date — are only beginning.

Almorie is among the young professionals who have participated in the Foreign Policy and Leadership Program and Early Careers Foreign Policy Analysis, a professional development initiative organised by the American Center Kampala in partnership with the U.S. Embassy Kampala, the Lincoln Institute of Diplomacy and International Relations, and the Center for Policy and Strategic Studies.

The programme exposes participants to foreign policy analysis, diplomacy, international relations, strategic leadership and global affairs, while connecting young professionals with practitioners in the field. For Almorie, the experience adds another layer to a profile that could easily be defined only by beauty and pageantry.

Her interest in international relations reflects an ambition to understand how countries interact, how global decisions affect ordinary people and how young Africans can participate in shaping conversations beyond their borders. That ambition also sits alongside her “Beauty With a Purpose” project, which focuses on financial literacy and vocational skilling for young women and girls.

The connection between the two interests is significant. Her advocacy focuses on giving young women greater economic agency, while her interest in international relations points towards a longer-term ambition to engage with issues of leadership and global affairs. It presents a different picture of the woman competing for the Miss Uganda crown.

Behind the runway preparation, photography and public appearances is a young woman deliberately exposing herself to ideas about diplomacy, leadership and Uganda’s place in the world. Her participation in the foreign-policy programme does not, by itself, determine where her career will eventually lead. But it offers an early indication of the direction she is interested in pursuing.

And that may ultimately be the more interesting story about Almorie. The Miss Uganda crown could give her a platform. What she chooses to do with that platform may be shaped by the interests she is already developing beyond the pageant. For now, she is competing for the crown. But Almorie Nagayi appears to be preparing for a career that could take her considerably beyond it.

Mutwe, together with fellow NUP bodyguards Mugumya Gaddafi, Grace Wakabi and Achilleo Kivumbi, was granted bail by Masaka High Court Senior Resident Judge Victoria Nakintu Katamba.

The court set cash bail at Sh5 million each, while their sureties were bonded at Sh50 million non-cash each.

The judge also ordered the four accused persons to surrender their passports and report to the Deputy High Court Registrar on the first Monday of every month. But the bail order does not mean Mutwe can simply walk out of Luzira Prison.

The reason is that the four are not facing only the Masaka case.

Mutwe and Kivumbi, in particular, have another case pending before a Kampala court in which they are accused, alongside other NUP supporters, of participating in unauthorised military-style drills at the party’s headquarters in Makerere-Kavule. That separate case has become the legal barrier between Mutwe and immediate freedom.

The development has therefore created a situation in which an accused person has secured bail in one case but remains incarcerated because of another pending matter.

NUP Secretary General David Lewis Rubongoya said the party was concerned that the granting of bail in Masaka had not resulted in Mutwe’s release.

Rubongoya said the party’s position remained that the continued detention of its officials and supporters was unjustified, particularly where courts had already considered the applicants’ circumstances and granted them bail.

He said the party would continue to pursue the legal avenues available to secure Mutwe’s freedom.

The Masaka case arises from an incident at a burial in Lwengo District in May 2024.

Prosecution alleges that Mutwe, Kivumbi, Mugumya and Wakabi committed aggravated robbery, malicious damage to property and assault during the incident.

They have denied the allegations. The prosecution’s case has previously alleged that mourners and journalists were attacked and that property, including mobile phones, was taken.

Earlier court proceedings showed that the State opposed bail, citing concerns including possible interference with witnesses.

In August 2025, the Masaka High Court rejected an earlier bail application by the four bodyguards, with the court expressing concern that the accused could interfere with prosecution witnesses.

The latest decision by Justice Katamba therefore marks a significant change in their position in the Masaka proceedings. However, it does not extinguish the other criminal proceedings against Mutwe and Kivumbi.

The second case

The second case dates to February 2025, when NUP held activities at its headquarters in Makerere-Kavule.

Prosecution alleges that some party supporters engaged in military-style drills without authorisation from the Minister of Internal Affairs.

The accused were charged with offences including unlawful drilling and conspiracy to commit a felony. Mutwe and Kivumbi were among those arrested and remanded in connection with the case.

In October 2025, the Kawempe Grade One Magistrate’s Court rejected bail applications by 10 NUP supporters, including Mutwe and Kivumbi.

The prosecution argued that the two had additional aggravated robbery charges pending before the High Court in Masaka, while also raising concerns about possible interference with witnesses and the adequacy of some sureties.

The magistrate subsequently ruled that the applicants had not satisfied the requirements for release on bail.

The accused later sought mandatory bail after spending more than 60 days on remand.

In October 2025, Mutwe and Kivumbi had reportedly spent 68 days in custody without trial and asked the court to grant them mandatory bail under the Constitution.

However, the Grade II Magistrate who handled the application ruled that his court lacked jurisdiction to determine the matter.

That legal history explains why the latest Masaka decision should not be interpreted as an unconditional release order.

One man, two cases

The situation illustrates the difficulty created when an accused person faces separate criminal proceedings in different courts.

A person may satisfy the requirements for bail in one case, including presenting substantial sureties and undertaking to comply with reporting conditions, but still remain in custody if another court has a valid remand order in a different case.

In Mutwe’s case, the Masaka High Court has now imposed strict conditions. He must raise Sh5 million cash bail, secure a Sh50 million non-cash bond from each surety, surrender his passport and report to the Deputy High Court Registrar every first Monday of the month.

But those conditions only address the Masaka proceedings. They do not automatically cancel the separate remand order in the Kampala case.

This is why supporters who expected Mutwe to leave Luzira immediately after the Masaka ruling may have been surprised that he remained behind bars.

The situation has also placed the focus on the State’s handling of the two cases and whether prosecution is ready to proceed with the trials.

For NUP, the continued detention has become a political and legal issue. Rubongoya has repeatedly argued that opposition supporters should not be held indefinitely while investigations and court processes drag on.

The party maintains that its members should be presumed innocent until proven guilty and that courts should determine their cases without unnecessary delays.

From disappearance to court

Mutwe’s continued incarceration also comes after a highly controversial episode in April and May 2025 when he disappeared after being picked up by armed men.

His disappearance triggered widespread concern and calls for his whereabouts to be disclosed.

Then-UPDF commander Muhoozi Kainerugaba later claimed on social media that Mutwe was being held by him, prompting national and international attention.

Reuters reported at the time that Kainerugaba said Mutwe was in his basement and made threats against him.

Mutwe subsequently appeared before court and was charged in connection with the Masaka allegations.

His lawyers later raised concerns about his physical condition and alleged torture while he was in detention. Amnesty International has also documented the controversy surrounding his detention and allegations of torture.

The latest bail ruling therefore represents an important legal development for Mutwe, but not yet the end of his incarceration.

What happens next?

The immediate question is whether the court handling the Kampala case will release Mutwe, or whether he will continue to be held on the strength of that separate case.

For his lawyers, the Masaka bail ruling provides another argument for his release if they can satisfy the requirements of the court handling the second case.

For the State, however, each criminal case is legally distinct. The prosecution can therefore continue with the Kampala proceedings even after the Masaka High Court has granted bail.

The four bodyguards have now secured a major legal victory in the Masaka case, but for Mutwe, the victory is incomplete.

He has won the right to temporary liberty in one case, but another case still stands between him and the prison gates.

Until that second matter is resolved, or another court grants him bail or otherwise orders his release, Mutwe can remain at Luzira despite having been granted bail in Masaka.

The development is likely to renew debate over the continued detention of opposition activists and whether Uganda’s criminal justice system is allowing multiple cases to effectively prolong detention even when courts have found grounds for release in one of them.

For NUP, the message is clear: granting bail in Masaka should not be mistaken for the end of Mutwe’s legal battle.

The party now faces the task of pursuing the second case while pressing for his eventual release. For Mutwe himself, the court has opened one door. Another one, however, remains locked.

The stunning legal opinion has thrown into question a project that has already consumed years of government attention, forced motorists to pay hundreds of thousands of shillings for new plates and generated fierce political and parliamentary controversy.

Appearing before Parliament’s Committee on Physical Infrastructure, chaired by Mwine Mpaka, the Attorney General said fundamental legal and contractual conditions were never fulfilled.

“There are those things which go to the fundamentals of the contract itself which don’t exist here,” Dr Mayanja told MPs. “I think I would go ahead and say, as Attorney General, I see no contract here to comment on. There’s no contract which binds the State of Uganda because none of the conditions which go to the root of the matter have been fulfilled.”

His statement potentially turns the entire digital number plate saga on its head. For years, government has treated the agreement signed in July 2021 as a valid arrangement under which JSCGS would establish and operate the Intelligent Transport Monitoring System (ITMS), including digital number plates and vehicle-tracking technology.

But the Government’s principal legal adviser now says the agreement does not legally bind the State. The implications are enormous.

How The Deal Was Born

The digital number plate project dates back to President Yoweri Museveni’s security concerns over murders, kidnappings and criminal activity involving vehicles and motorcycles.

The project gathered momentum after the June 2021 attempted assassination of then Works and Transport Minister Gen Edward Katumba Wamala.

Security Minister Maj Gen (Rtd) Jim Muhwezi subsequently announced that Cabinet had approved the installation of tracking devices in vehicles and motorcycles.

A 10-year agreement with JSCGS was eventually signed on July 23, 2021. The Government was represented by the Office of the President and the Ministry of Works and Transport, while JSCGS signed on behalf of the Russian side.

Muhwezi became the public face of the project and defended the arrangement before Parliament.

He told MPs that the project was not a personal initiative, saying President Museveni had directed him on June 13, 2021 to move quickly.

Muhwezi also said the procurement process had started years before he became Security Minister and that government had conducted due diligence on the Russian company as early as December 2018.

The Attorney General at the time, William Kiryowa Kiwanuka, reportedly said his office had cleared the agreement. Muhwezi also maintained that the procurement had been done within the law and had received clearance from the Solicitor General. That assurance is now one of the issues likely to attract renewed parliamentary scrutiny.

Otafiire’s Warning

But even as the project was being pushed forward, there was a senior government official who was deeply uncomfortable with the arrangement. That was then Internal Affairs Minister Maj Gen (Rtd) Kahinda Otafiire.

Otafiire who is the current Minister of Water and Environment told Parliament in 2023 that he had written directly to President Museveni warning him about the project and proposing an alternative arrangement.

His concern was not simply about the technology. He questioned why Uganda should abandon local number plate manufacturers and instead import plates from abroad when the same technology could potentially be incorporated into locally manufactured plates.

“I wrote that the Russian company can work with the current manufacturers of number plates in Uganda and explore the possibility of putting their chips on the number plates in Uganda,” Otafiire told MPs.

He said shutting down local manufacturers in favour of imported plates would be insensitive and inconsistent with Uganda’s local manufacturing ambitions. More troublingly, Otafiire said he never received a response from the President.

He suspected that his communication might never have reached Museveni. “I never received a reply,” he said, adding that he doubted whether the President had received the communication.

The revelation created one of the most intriguing questions surrounding the project: who stood between a senior Cabinet minister and the President?

While there is no established evidence that a specific individual deliberately hid Otafiire’s letter, the minister’s account has fuelled allegations of an internal network of officials who may have controlled information reaching the President.

Any suggestion that a “mafia” deliberately intercepted the letter therefore remains an allegation requiring evidence and should not be treated as an established fact.

The Contractual Red Flags

The parliamentary inquiry has now exposed a string of apparent compliance gaps. Among the issues raised before the committee are the absence of a proper feasibility study, questions about value-for-money assessment, lack of clearance relating to financial commitments and contingent liabilities, and questions surrounding the project’s revenue-sharing arrangements.

The committee has also questioned how the Shs714,300 charge imposed on motorists was arrived at.

The controversy deepened after Parliament’s CID arrested two officials—Nathan Negesa, attached to the Office of the President, and Moses Bekabye, a Ministry of Finance official—following their appearance before the committee.

Negesa was unable to provide MPs with a satisfactory breakdown of the Shs714,300 charge. A breakdown subsequently presented to MPs reportedly accounted for Shs624,000, leaving Shs90,300 unexplained.

The arrests have transformed what initially appeared to be an administrative dispute into a potentially wider accountability investigation.

who approved what?

The emerging picture shows a chain of responsibility involving several institutions. President Museveni provided the political direction for the vehicle-tracking initiative. The Security Ministry, under Muhwezi, became central to implementation.

The Office of the President and the Ministry of Works and Transport were signatories to the agreement. JSCGS became the private contractor. The Attorney General’s office provided legal advice under the previous Attorney General.

And several government agencies were subsequently drawn into implementation, including security, transport, finance and other institutions.

Yet the latest legal opinion raises the fundamental question of whether the contractual foundation on which all these activities rested was legally sound in the first place.

The Money Question

The financial structure is another explosive component. Government had repeatedly explained that it would not directly finance the project upfront because JSCGS would invest and recover its money over the life of the 10-year agreement.

Muhwezi said the company would put in its money and recover it over the period, with the Ministry of Finance involved in developing the financial model.

Earlier reports also showed a controversial revenue-sharing arrangement under which the contractor would receive a large share of penalties during the initial years before government’s share increased later.

The Attorney General’s latest position raises a fundamental question: how could a private company be permitted to derive revenue from an arrangement that may itself have violated Ugandan law? That is now one of the central issues for Parliament.

Security Benefits Under Question

Muhwezi has continued to defend the security value of the system. Appearing before MPs on September 30, he said the tracking system was working and had helped security agencies recover stolen vehicles.

But MPs have demanded evidence that the technology being used justifies the enormous cost imposed on motorists.

Manufacturers have also complained about the foreign company’s monopoly, while the Uganda Manufacturers Association has argued that the arrangement contributed to delays, high costs and disruption of local businesses. The project has also faced repeated delays in issuing plates.

The Big Question

The digital number plate saga has therefore moved far beyond a dispute over the price of a number plate.

It is now a question about how government contracts are approved, who provides legal and financial oversight, whether Cabinet decisions are properly documented and whether officials can proceed with projects before fundamental statutory requirements are met.

It is also a question about accountability. If the Attorney General is correct that there is no legally binding contract, Parliament must now establish who authorised implementation, who approved expenditure, who negotiated the financial model, who cleared the procurement and why warnings from senior officials were not acted upon.

Most importantly, government must explain what happens next to the millions of Ugandans who have already paid for the digital plates.

The parliamentary committee is expected to summon more officials involved in the original procurement and has also arranged to engage President Museveni through the Office of the Speaker.

The digital number plate project was sold to Ugandans as a revolutionary security tool designed to make it easier to track criminals and stolen vehicles.

Five years later, the project has become a test of something much bigger: whether Uganda’s procurement, legal and accountability systems can prevent a multi-billion-shilling government venture from being implemented on a contract that the Attorney General now says does not legally exist.

The dispute centres on land comprised in Busiro Block 366 at Kansiri and Blocks 372-373 at Nakigalala, which the Kiweewa family says formed part of the estate of the late Prince Yusufu Suuna Kiweewa and was bequeathed to his daughter, Princess Kasalina Nkinzi.

The family has now accused Madhvani of benefiting from what it calls a fraudulent process through which the company acquired or maintained title to the land, allegations the company has yet to publicly answer in the documents provided.

The Attorney General, however, has taken a substantially different position, advising the Government that Madhvani Group Limited is the registered proprietor and in possession of the disputed land, and that there is no legal or occupancy claim by a third party capable of defeating Madhvani’s claim.

The Attorney General’s position is contained in a letter dated August 19, 2026, addressed to Jonard Asiimwe, Minister in the Office of the President in charge of Science, Technology and Innovation. The letter clears the way for the Government to proceed with the purchase of the land from Madhvani Group for establishment of the proposed High-Tech Innovation City. But the Kiweewa family has rejected the transaction, saying the Government risks spending billions of taxpayers’ money on land whose ownership is still the subject of active court proceedings.

In a strongly worded press release dated October 6, 2026, the family beneficiaries said they were distancing themselves from the transaction between Madhvani and the Government. They called upon the Auditor General, Parliament and the Inspectorate of Government to scrutinise the transaction and establish how Madhvani acquired its interest in the land. At the heart of the dispute is the historical status of the land.

 The 1911 lease

According to records cited by the Kiweewa family, Prince Yusufu Suuna Kiweewa leased approximately 948.1 acres of his estate to H. Dewhaurst in 1911 under Grant No. G9100 for 99 years. The family says the grant contained restrictive conditions, including that the land was not to be sold, leased or mortgaged because it was classified as Milo land.

The family argues that the lease was specifically for plantations, including coffee, para and tea, and was due to expire in 2013. Its argument is that upon expiry of the lease, the land should have reverted to its customary owners rather than being converted into freehold land and subsequently transferred to Madhvani.

The family says it has been unable to trace a legitimate chain of title showing how Madhvani acquired rights over the original Milo land.

“Madhvani started his business operations in Uganda way back in the 1930s,” the family says in its statement, “but there is no recorded evidence tracing his freehold title claims on Yusufu Suuna’s Milo land through to the 1960s when the Buganda crisis occurred and after the return of Asians.” The family further argues that the lease automatically expired in 2013 and that the land should have reverted to its customary owners. That position, however, is directly challenged by the Attorney General.

AG backs Madhvani title

In his August 19 letter, Attorney General Dr Sam Mayanja relied on the Registration of Titles Act to argue that a certificate of title issued under the Act is conclusive evidence of ownership, subject to the law.

The Attorney General also cited provisions relating to competing titles, arguing that where several titles purport to affect the same estate or interest, the first registered title prevails. He further noted that Madhvani Group Limited was in both legal and physical possession of the property.

The Attorney General told the STI minister that if the Kiweewa estate had title while Madhvani had possession, the estate would have been entitled to 40% of the proceeds and Madhvani 60%. But, he added, the Kiweewa estate was neither the registered proprietor nor in occupation.  “Therefore, the issue of sharing does not arise,” the Attorney General said.

He also dismissed the relevance of events preceding Madhvani’s title, including the 1900 grant, surveys and mutations allegedly undertaken through the estate of Prince Yusufu Suuna Kiweewa. According to the Attorney General, once land had been brought under the Registration of Titles Act, historical claims could not be used to defeat the registered title. The Attorney General therefore concluded that there was no legal or occupancy claim by a third party against Madhvani’s claim to the land.

Government deal worth Shs170b

The dispute has become more explosive because the land is at the centre of a major Government development project. The Attorney General’s letter says key stakeholders had agreed to facilitate implementation of the Government project through execution of a Land Sale and Purchase Agreement with Madhvani Group Limited.

Madhvani, according to the letter, agreed to hand over vacant possession of the land to Government for establishment of the High-Tech Innovation City. The arrangement provides for Government to make payments in instalments, with the title eventually transferred to the Uganda Land Commission, while the user would be indicated as the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.

The Kiweewa family, however, says the transaction could result in the Government paying about Shs170b of taxpayers’ money to Madhvani for the land. The family claims Madhvani intends to pay only about Shs3b to the family beneficiaries out of the transaction. That allegation has become one of the major flashpoints in the dispute. The family argues that it is unacceptable for a large public payment to be made over land whose ownership remains contested in court.

Court battle still alive

The Kiweewa family is relying heavily on a ruling delivered by Justice Naluzze Aisha Batala on January 20, 2025. According to the family, the ruling reopened questions surrounding the ownership of the land and the legality of Madhvani’s title. The family quoted Justice Batala as finding that issues raised by the applicants were sufficiently strong to warrant reopening the case because they went to the root of ownership and cast doubt on the legality of the respondent’s title over land comprised in FRV 45 Folio 2 at Nakigalala.

The family says the ruling followed presentation of what it describes as authentic historical records concerning the land. Madhvani has since appealed the decision. The family says the matter is now before the Court of Appeal under Civil Appeal No. COA-00-CV-CA-0212-2025, where it is being heard by a three-judge panel.

This means that while the Attorney General has advised Government that Madhvani’s title should be treated as valid, the underlying ownership dispute has not disappeared from the courts. It is this apparent contradiction that the Kiweewa family wants Parliament, the Auditor General and the Inspectorate of Government to examine.

1960 or 2018?

Another potentially significant issue emerging from the documents is the chronology of Madhvani’s title.

The Attorney General’s letter refers to Madhvani obtaining title in the 1960s and says that issues arising before the title was obtained in 1960 do not arise. The Kiweewa family, however, claims Madhvani only became a freehold title holder over the disputed land in 2018.

The family alleges that Madhvani had earlier gone to court seeking an exclusive declaration of ownership and that the proceedings were subsequently reopened after the beneficiaries presented records challenging the basis of the title.

The conflicting accounts about when and how the title was acquired could become an important issue in determining the history of the property. The family is therefore demanding that the land records, original grants, surveys, mutations and subsequent titles be subjected to an independent forensic review.

Who represents the estate?

The dispute has also opened another front involving the administration of the late Prince Yusufu Suuna Kiweewa’s estate. The family says court-appointed administrators—Fredrick Jjunju, Abdalatiff Nakalali, Muhammad Nawango and Sirimani Ssebirumbi—are not family members and accuses them of being hostile to the beneficiaries.

The beneficiaries allege that the administrators have interfered with property that had been bequeathed to Princess Kasalina Nkinzi. They further contend that Princess Kasalina had her own family administrators and that the administrators of the wider Kiweewa estate have no authority to treat the disputed property as their personal asset.

These are allegations contained in the family’s statement and would need to be tested against the estate administration records and court decisions. The family has also raised concerns about the involvement of individual members of the family in the Government-Madhvani negotiations. It warned that any family member who may have signed documents facilitating the transaction did so in an individual capacity and not on behalf of all beneficiaries.

The proposed compromise

Interestingly, the Attorney General’s letter acknowledges the existence of the competing family claims even as it rejects them as a legal impediment to the transaction. The letter says Dr Hillary Emmanuel Musoke, the Special Presidential Adviser on Agribusiness and Value Addition Development/Special Duties, was vetted by stakeholders to broker a goodwill, or “win-win”, payment to the families of the late Prince Yusufu Suuna Kiweewa, Muwanga Omuweesi and the estate of the late Daudi Chwa II.

The proposed payment was to be made without prejudice to Madhvani’s proceedings and without delaying conclusion of the Government’s purchase agreement. This arrangement appears intended to settle the competing interests politically or administratively while allowing Government to proceed with the High-Tech Innovation City project. But the Kiweewa family has rejected that approach. For the beneficiaries, the central question is not simply how much compensation they should receive, but who legally owns the 948.1 acres in the first place.

A costly legal and political test

The Nakigalala dispute now presents Government with a difficult balancing act. On one side is the Attorney General’s legal advice that the registered title and possession held by Madhvani provide sufficient basis for Government to proceed with the purchase. On the other is a family-backed court challenge questioning the origin, legality and history of that title. The Government could therefore find itself acquiring land at a cost of Shs170b while litigation over the underlying ownership remains unresolved.

The Kiweewa beneficiaries insist that they are not opposed to development but want the Government to establish that it is purchasing land from the legitimate owner. They argue that taxpayers should not be required to finance a transaction that could later become the subject of further litigation or compensation claims.

The controversy also raises wider questions about Uganda’s land administration system: how historical customary interests are dealt with when land enters the registered-title system; how old colonial grants are interpreted; how competing claims are resolved; and whether Government should conclude major land purchases while ownership disputes remain before the courts.

For now, the Attorney General has given the green light for the transaction to proceed. The Kiweewa family, however, has drawn a line in the sand. It wants the Auditor General, Parliament and the Inspectorate of Government to investigate the transaction before public money changes hands. And with the Court of Appeal still seized of the ownership dispute, the battle over the 948.1 acres at Nakigalala is far from over.