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.

Nameere issued the apology on X on Sunday, saying she had no intention of attacking Muhoozi and blaming “unscrupulous people” for manipulating the video and attaching his name to her remarks. “My sincere apology to Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba @mkainerugaba regarding a video that unscrupulous people maliciously edited and put your name!” Nameere wrote.

“I can NEVER attack you my Brother! Heshima. For those who seek to sow discord, Proverbs Chapter 6:19 says ‘The Lord detests a false witness’,” she added. The apology came after days of escalating exchanges involving Nameere, Muhoozi and senior PLU officials, particularly the organisation’s former secretary general, Daudi Kabanda.

Muhoozi subsequently accepted the apology and announced that he had forgiven the minister, while directing PLU members to stop attacking her. “I have hereby forgiven my dear sister Hon. Justine Nameere. I do not hold grudges against people. I wish all well. The matter is settled,” Muhoozi wrote. “PLU is instructed to stop attacking her from this day on,” he added. The development effectively closes the latest chapter in a dispute that had threatened to deepen tensions between Nameere and supporters of the PLU chairman.

Video Controversy

The dispute was triggered by a video circulating on social media which appeared to show Nameere making remarks that were interpreted as being directed at Muhoozi. Reports about the controversy indicate that a longer version of the recording provided a different context, with Nameere addressing Kabanda rather than Muhoozi.

Nameere had earlier challenged the authenticity and interpretation of another clip linked to former Speaker Anita Among, explaining that it had been extracted from an older recording and presented without the surrounding context. The latest apology therefore appears to have been intended to draw a line under the controversy while reaffirming Nameere’s relationship with Muhoozi. Her reference to being his “sister” also signalled an attempt to frame the disagreement as an internal misunderstanding rather than a permanent political confrontation.

Muhoozi Calls for an End to Attacks

Muhoozi’s response was notable not only because he accepted the apology but also because he specifically instructed PLU supporters to stop attacking Nameere. His statement that “the matter is settled” suggests that the CDF regarded the apology as sufficient to resolve the dispute.

The directive is significant because several PLU supporters had joined the online exchanges surrounding Nameere, with the disagreement increasingly involving personalities beyond the original video. Muhoozi’s instruction puts the matter within the PLU leadership structure and asks his supporters to cease further confrontation with the minister. The dispute had escalated after Muhoozi had publicly demanded that Nameere apologise to him.

On September 16, Muhoozi gave Nameere seven days to apologise, warning that failure to do so would have consequences. Earlier, he had also said that if Nameere was “misbehaving”, removing her from Cabinet would be straightforward. Nameere has now apologised, while Muhoozi has publicly accepted it.

Kabanda Fires Back

Despite Muhoozi’s call for peace, Kabanda’s response showed that tensions between him and Nameere have a separate history. Kabanda said Nameere’s previous criticism of him should not be separated from his role within PLU and his relationship with Muhoozi.

“Nameere should know that when she attacked me, she was attacking CDF who had sent me to withdraw PLU support from AAA,” Kabanda wrote on X. He was referring to the political contest involving Anita Among, commonly known as AAA, and PLU’s earlier decision to withdraw its support. Kabanda also responded to Nameere’s questions about accountability for proceeds from Muhoozi’s birthday run.

“She went further to allege that proceeds from the birthday run were misappropriated by the organizers and demanded accountability,” he wrote. “That has nothing to do with me, blame your own mouth. Ebyange naawe tebijja kugwa! Oba bakusonyiye bakusonyiwe,” Kabanda added. Kabanda’s comments underline that although Muhoozi has declared the matter settled, the broader disagreement between Nameere and some PLU figures has deeper roots.

Nameere had previously criticised Kabanda over PLU’s decision to withdraw support from Among and questioned accountability for money associated with Muhoozi’s birthday charity run. The disagreement therefore goes beyond the disputed video and touches on political loyalties, PLU’s role in parliamentary politics and the relationship between its leadership and elected officials.

A Wider PLU Political Context

The Nameere-Muhoozi dispute comes at a time when PLU is expanding its political mobilisation activities. Muhoozi, who chairs PLU, has publicly declared his intention to contest for the presidency in 2031. Kabanda subsequently announced that the PLU chairman would seek the presidency and said the decision had been sanctioned by President Yoweri Museveni.

PLU has since embarked on a nationwide signature and mobilisation campaign in support of Muhoozi’s political ambitions. Uganda Radio Network reported that the group had begun grassroots mobilisation in Busoga alongside its endorsement drive. Kabanda has emerged as one of the most prominent public defenders and organisers within the Muhoozi political project.

That makes his dispute with Nameere politically significant even though the immediate controversy involved a video. Kabanda’s own explanation was that his actions concerning Among were undertaken after receiving instructions from Muhoozi. This is why he interpreted Nameere’s criticism of him as indirectly involving the CDF. Nameere, meanwhile, is both a Cabinet minister and Masaka City Woman MP, placing her at the intersection of government, Parliament and the increasingly visible PLU political network.

The political fallout

The apology has now changed the immediate direction of the confrontation. Instead of continuing with the ultimatum issued by Muhoozi, the two sides have publicly moved towards reconciliation. Muhoozi’s statement that he “does not hold grudges” and his instruction to PLU supporters to stop attacking Nameere provide a clear indication that he wants the dispute closed.

Nameere’s invocation of Proverbs 6:19 — “The Lord detests a false witness” — meanwhile places her explanation firmly around the claim that the video was manipulated and used to create discord. The remaining issue is whether the latest reconciliation will also ease the separate disagreements between Nameere and PLU officials such as Kabanda. For now, however, the most prominent confrontation has been publicly resolved.

For Nameere and Muhoozi, the public exchange has ended with an apology and forgiveness. For Kabanda and Nameere, however, the record of their earlier political disagreements remains, even as Muhoozi has instructed the PLU faithful to move on

The utility vehicle was delivered to UMC executive director Alan Kasujja on Sunday by the Acting Director of Defence Public Information, Col Chris Magezi. The donation followed a meeting between Gen Muhoozi and Kasujja, during which the two discussed national matters, geopolitics, faith and the work ahead, according to Kasujja.

Kasujja later disclosed that he had raised the issue of transport at UMC after informing the CDF about an accident involving two of his colleagues, Glen and Michael. The two employees of UMC had been involved in an accident while travelling in a vehicle used for their work. Kasujja said he mentioned to Gen Muhoozi that the institution needed to replace the vehicle that had been involved in the accident. He said the CDF responded immediately.

“Less than two hours after we parted ways, a brand-new Toyota Land Cruiser arrived to support our work,” Kasujja said in a statement. The vehicle was delivered by Col Magezi on behalf of the CDF. Kasujja also reported that both Glen and Michael, the two UMC staff members involved in the accident, were doing well. He thanked God for their safety and expressed appreciation for the intervention that resulted in the replacement vehicle.

The donation gives UMC additional transport capacity at a time when the government communication institution is required to provide media access and information from activities taking place across the country. The vehicle is particularly expected to support long-distance assignments, where journalists and government communication officials have to travel to remote districts to document government programmes, public events and other national activities.

CDF Support

According to the Ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs (MoDVA), the donation is part of what it described as close interagency cooperation between the defence establishment and other government institutions. Col Magezi said the donation demonstrated cooperation within government aimed at improving service delivery, transparency and accountability.

“The MoDVA/UPDF, under Gen. Kainerugaba’s leadership, has consistently believed in and supported the work of the Uganda Media Centre,” Kasujja said. “We do not take that support for granted. Asante sana, Afande,” he added. The donation places emphasis on the practical needs of government communication, particularly mobility.

The Uganda Media Centre serves as a platform through which government ministries, departments and agencies engage the media and the public. Its operations often involve facilitating press conferences, government briefings, media engagements and communication around national programmes. Field operations also require officials and media personnel to travel outside Kampala. The new Land Cruiser is therefore expected to improve the centre’s ability to undertake such assignments.

Accident Triggers Request

The donation came shortly after the accident involving the two UMC employees. Kasujja said that during his meeting with Gen Muhoozi, the issue of the damaged vehicle was not initially the main subject of their discussion. He described it as something he mentioned “almost in passing”. However, according to Kasujja, Gen Muhoozi immediately acted on the information. The speed with which the replacement vehicle was delivered became a major feature of Kasujja’s account of the meeting. He said that after the meeting ended, less than two hours passed before a new Toyota Land Cruiser had arrived to support the centre’s work. The account portrays the vehicle as an operational intervention following the loss of an existing vehicle in the accident.

There was no indication in the statement of the value of the new vehicle or the procurement process through which it was acquired. The statement also did not provide details of the damaged vehicle or the circumstances surrounding the accident involving the two UMC employees.

Military-Civilian Cooperation

The donation also highlights the relationship between the UPDF and civilian government institutions. The UPDF says its constitutional mandate includes cooperating with civilian authorities in specified circumstances and fostering harmony and understanding between the defence forces and civilians. The force also describes itself as a national institution subordinate to civilian authority and says its mandate includes cooperation with civilian authorities.

Gen Muhoozi became CDF in March 2024, succeeding Gen Wilson Mbadi. At the time of his assumption of office, he said the UPDF would continue to focus on professionalism, national security and improving the welfare and working conditions of its personnel. The UPDF has subsequently highlighted civil-military cooperation as part of its activities, including engagements with government agencies and communities.

In recent months, the military has also worked with other government institutions in activities ranging from disaster preparedness to infrastructure and community interventions. The donation to UMC therefore comes against a broader background of interaction between the military establishment and civilian government agencies.

Media Operations

For UMC, the immediate concern is operational. The centre is expected to facilitate communication between government and the public, making reliable transport important for staff undertaking assignments away from Kampala. Long-distance field work can involve travel to districts where government projects, public events, security activities, infrastructure developments and other programmes are being implemented.

A utility vehicle capable of handling such assignments can consequently expand the centre’s operational reach. The Land Cruiser is expected to be used as a work vehicle rather than as a ceremonial asset, with UMC indicating that it will support its operations. Kasujja’s statement did not indicate whether the vehicle would be assigned to a particular department or whether it would be available to different UMC teams depending on their field assignments.

Kasujja Thanks CDF

Kasujja expressed appreciation for the donation, describing the support from the Defence Ministry and UPDF as something the media centre valued. His meeting with Gen Muhoozi had initially covered wider issues, including national affairs and geopolitics. Kasujja said the CDF also asked about Glen and Michael after learning of their accident.

He reported that both staff members were recovering well. The concern for the two employees, followed by the provision of a replacement vehicle, formed the immediate background to the donation. The vehicle was handed over on Sunday by Col Magezi, who represented the CDF at the delivery.

The Ministry of Defence described the donation as demonstrating interagency cooperation intended to enhance service delivery and strengthen transparency and accountability across government sectors. For UMC, the immediate benefit is increased mobility. The institution will now have an additional vehicle to support its work, particularly assignments involving long-distance travel across Uganda.

The donation also reinforces the role of transport in government communication, where officials and media teams increasingly have to move beyond Kampala to document activities and engage communities. As UMC begins using the new Toyota Land Cruiser, its officials are expected to deploy it for the centre’s operational needs, with the institution expressing gratitude to Gen Muhoozi and the defence establishment

The announcement immediately places the family name “Museveni” more prominently in the identity of the military chief, who is the eldest child of President Yoweri Museveni and First Lady Janet Kataaha Museveni. Muhoozi, 52, was born on April 24, 1974, in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, according to an account by his father published by Uganda Broadcasting Corporation.

President Museveni has described the four children he had with Janet as Muhoozi, Natasha, Patience and Kyaremeera, and has spoken publicly about their childhood during the years of political instability and the family’s exile. The change therefore adds another layer to the public identity of a man whose name has become increasingly prominent in Uganda’s military and political affairs.

First Son of Museveni

Muhoozi is the first-born of President Museveni and Janet Museveni. The President has repeatedly spoken about the circumstances surrounding his son’s birth. In his 2026 birthday message, Museveni recalled that Muhoozi was born at Ocean Road Hospital in Dar es Salaam after Janet was driven to the hospital by a Dutch neighbour.

Museveni said Muhoozi’s birth coincided with the historic events of April 24 and 25, 1974, when Portugal’s Carnation Revolution began bringing an end to the country’s authoritarian regime and its colonial empire in Africa.

The President has also described his children as having grown up during the liberation struggle. He said Janet was largely responsible for looking after them during periods when he was away because of his political and military activities.

Muhoozi subsequently joined the military and rose through the ranks of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF). He became CDF, placing him at the head of Uganda’s armed forces. His current public profile extends beyond the military. He is also chairman of the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU), a political pressure group, and has publicly expressed an intention to seek Uganda’s presidency in 2031. Recent reporting has linked his political activities to growing discussions about the country’s future leadership.

The Museveni Siblings

Muhoozi is the eldest of four children born to Yoweri and Janet Museveni. His three younger siblings are Natasha Karugire Museveni, Patience Rwabwogo Museveni and Diana Museveni Kyaremeera. President Museveni himself recently provided details of their birth dates and childhood. He said Natasha was born on March 12, 1977, Patience on May 9, 1978, and Kyaremeera on June 30, 1980.

Natasha Karugire Museveni, popularly known in the family as “Kukuru”, is the first daughter. She is a filmmaker, author and fashion entrepreneur. She is married to lawyer and businessman Edwin Karugire, and the couple have children. Their marriage marked 25 years in 2025.

Natasha has also spoken about the family’s difficult childhood, including periods of exile. She recalled that the family moved through different countries during the political turmoil surrounding her father’s activities and that the children experienced long periods away from him.

Patience Rwabwogo Museveni is the second daughter. She is married to businessman Odrek Rwabwogo and is known publicly for her Christian ministry. Her father has previously described her as being involved in farming and other private-sector activities.

Diana Museveni Kyaremeera, the youngest of the four siblings, is married to Geoffrey Kamuntu. President Museveni has also said that Diana is involved in the management of aspects of the family’s private estate. Thus, the new name announced by Muhoozi does not alter his position as the eldest of the four siblings, but it gives greater prominence to the surname associated with his father and the family that has dominated Uganda’s political history for four decades.

Wife and Children

Muhoozi is married to Charlotte Nankunda Kutesa. The couple married in 1999 and have four children, according to Muhoozi’s official family biography.

Charlotte is a daughter of former Foreign Affairs minister Sam Kutesa, making the Muhoozi family connected by marriage to another prominent Ugandan political family.

Muhoozi has generally kept his children away from the centre of his public activities compared with his military and political engagements. His official biography describes him as a husband and father and identifies family as an important part of his private life.

The Wider Family

The Museveni family network extends beyond the four children. President Museveni’s wife is Janet Kataaha Museveni, who has served in government and parliament and has held several ministerial responsibilities. The couple have been married since 1973.

Janet’s side of the family is also significant to Muhoozi’s background. President Museveni has previously spoken about his wife’s father, Edward Kataaha, and her brother Kainerugaba, who died in a car accident in 1966. On Museveni’s side, the extended family includes his younger brother Gen Salim Saleh, who has played a major role in Uganda’s military and political history. Other members of the wider Museveni and in-law networks have also held public positions or maintained prominent business and professional careers.

Muhoozi’s own marriage to Charlotte further links him to the Kutesa family. His sister Natasha’s marriage to Edwin Karugire and Patience’s marriage to Odrek Rwabwogo have similarly created links with influential Ugandan families.

What the new name means

The immediate significance of the announcement is that the CDF will now publicly identify himself as Muhoozi Kainerugaba Museveni, rather than simply Muhoozi Kainerugaba. The addition of “Museveni” formally brings the President’s surname into the name of his eldest son, who already has a highly visible identity as the President’s son.

It also comes at a time when Muhoozi occupies several powerful and highly public roles. He is the country’s military chief, chairman of the PLU and an increasingly prominent figure in discussions about Uganda’s political future.

His supporters have associated his political activities with a generational transition, while his critics have raised questions about the intersection between military leadership, family succession and politics. These are contested political interpretations, rather than facts established by the name change itself. For now, Muhoozi’s announcement is straightforward: the man previously known nationally as Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba says he will henceforth be known as Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba Museveni — MKM. The new name places his military identity, his personal family identity and the surname of the President in a single public name, marking another notable development in the public life of Uganda’s first family.

The campaign, driven largely by journalists, opposition politicians, activists, academics and ordinary social-media users, had mobilised about Shs30 million by Sunday as supporters rallied behind Ssentongo, who has been ordered by court to pay the money following proceedings arising from his public criticism of Kampala International University.

The fundraising has transformed X into a virtual collection point, with users contributing amounts ranging from a few thousand shillings to hundreds of thousands of shillings.

For many of the contributors, the campaign is about more than simply raising money. It has become a demonstration of solidarity with a public commentator who has built a reputation for using cartoons and commentary to interrogate Uganda’s political, social and economic affairs.

Journalists Join the Campaign
Journalists, Stanley Ndawula (The Investigator) Agather Atuhaire (freelance) and Gabriel Bbuule have been among those amplifying the fundraising campaign and calling on Ugandans to stand with Ssentongo.

In a post on X, Bbuule highlighted the court order requiring Ssentongo to pay Shs30 million and appealed to members of the public to contribute towards the target. Gabriel Bbuule’s X post

The campaign has also attracted contributions from people within Uganda’s media fraternity.Ndawula who is also the Chief Executive Officer of The Investigator, joined Bbuule in contributing Shs300,000 each towards the campaign.

Their contributions have been viewed as part of a broader effort by journalists to stand with one of their own at a time when the financial consequences of litigation threaten to become overwhelming.

“Stand With Spire” Message Spreads
Across X, supporters have been sharing fundraising messages, encouraging their followers to contribute whatever they can afford.

The campaign has relied heavily on the principle that small contributions, when combined, can make a significant difference.

Rather than expecting a handful of wealthy individuals to meet the entire obligation, supporters have urged hundreds or thousands of Ugandans to participate.

The result has been a remarkable demonstration of crowdsourced solidarity.

A contribution of Shs10,000, Shs20,000 or Shs50,000 may appear modest individually, but multiplied across a large number of people, such contributions can quickly build into millions of shillings.

More Than Just a Court Fine
For many supporters, however, the campaign goes beyond paying a financial penalty.

Ssentongo has become known for his cartoons and commentary on governance, corruption, inequality, accountability and social justice.His work has frequently provided Ugandans with a satirical lens through which to examine the country’s political and social realities.

His supporters therefore view the fundraising as an opportunity to demonstrate solidarity with a person they believe has consistently used his platform to engage Ugandans on matters affecting society.Contributing to the campaign does not necessarily mean endorsing every statement or position taken by Ssentongo.

For some donors, it is instead about ensuring that a fellow citizen and public commentator does not confront a major financial burden alone.

Ndawula and Bbuule Contribute Shs600,000
Among the notable contributions from the media fraternity is the combined Shs600,000 from Ndawula and Bbuule.

Ndawula contributed Shs300,000, while Bbuule also contributed Shs300,000.

Their participation has added weight to the campaign, particularly because both are journalists who understand the pressures that come with public commentary and investigative reporting.

Their intervention has also encouraged other members of the media fraternity and the public to participate.

X Becomes a Digital Mobilisation Centre
The Ssentongo campaign demonstrates the growing role of social media in organising Ugandans around causes that require urgent financial intervention.

In the past, fundraising campaigns were largely organised through churches, community associations, workplaces, radio stations and physical meetings.

Today, a single post on X can reach thousands of people within minutes.One person can post an appeal, another can amplify it, another can publish payment details, while hundreds of others can contribute.

The result is a form of digital mobilisation that can operate around the clock.The Ssentongo campaign has demonstrated precisely that power.

Ugandans Race Against Monday Deadline
With Monday’s deadline approaching, supporters have shifted their focus from awareness to action.

Those who pledged money are being encouraged to fulfil their promises, while those who have not yet contributed are being urged to give whatever amount they can afford.

The urgency has added momentum to the campaign, with supporters repeatedly reminding one another that the fundraising is operating against a fixed deadline.

The reported Shs30 million target has therefore become both a financial objective and a measure of how far Ssentongo’s online community can mobilise.

A Debate About Free Expression
The campaign has also reignited wider conversations about freedom of expression and the risks faced by journalists, cartoonists and public commentators.

Ssentongo’s supporters argue that people who participate in public debate should not be abandoned when they face legal and financial difficulties.At the same time, the court process remains an important part of the matter, with the rule of law requiring parties to respect judicial decisions.

For supporters, however, contributing money is not necessarily an attempt to challenge the court.Instead, it is viewed as a way of supporting Ssentongo personally while allowing the legal process to take its course.

A Test of Digital Solidarity
The fundraising has revealed the strength of the community Ssentongo has built through years of cartoons, commentary and public engagement.People who have followed his work have now moved from simply liking, reposting or commenting on his work to putting their money behind him.

The campaign is therefore testing a new form of digital solidarity in Uganda — one where online communities can rapidly transform sympathy into tangible financial assistance.For Ssentongo, the immediate challenge is clear: ensure that the Shs30 million obligation is met before Monday.

For his supporters, the message is equally clear: no one should face such a burden alone when a community is willing to stand together.

And with journalists such as Ndawula and Bbuule each contributing Shs300,000, the media fraternity has also sent its own message of solidarity: when one of its members comes under pressure, colleagues can choose to stand beside him.

As the deadline approaches, Ugandans on X are now watching to see whether their collective effort will provide Ssentongo with the financial lifeline he needs.

Dr. Muganga, the Vice Chancellor of Victoria University Kampala, was among a list of cabinet nominees submitted by President Museveni for vetting by Parliament’s Appointments Committee. However, his journey to Cabinet hit a legal brick wall after legislators established that he had previously held Canadian citizenship in addition to his Ugandan citizenship.The development has reignited debate about Uganda’s dual citizenship laws and whether successful Ugandans in the diaspora are being unfairly locked out of some of the country’s most influential public offices.

How The Drama Unfolded

Sources close to the Appointments Committee revealed that questions regarding Dr. Muganga’s citizenship status emerged during the vetting process.Although Muganga openly admitted that he previously possessed both Ugandan and Canadian citizenship, lawmakers reportedly concluded that his appointment to the sensitive Internal Affairs docket would be inconsistent with Uganda’s citizenship laws.The Ministry of Internal Affairs oversees immigration, citizenship matters, national identification, border management and several security-related functions, making it one of the country’s most sensitive government departments.

Following deliberations, the committee declined to approve his appointment and returned his name to the appointing authority.Addressing Parliament, Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa confirmed that most of the President’s nominees had successfully passed vetting, but one of the nominees had failed to secure approval.”Before I came here, I definitely had two citizenships—that’s the Ugandan citizenship and the Canadian citizenship,” Muganga had earlier explained while defending his record.He added that many Ugandans leave the country in search of opportunities abroad and later acquire foreign citizenship without losing their love for Uganda. “I am Ugandan. Uganda is my country,” he said.

The Law That Stopped Him

At the centre of the controversy is the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act of 2009.While the law permits Ugandans to acquire dual citizenship, it also places restrictions on holders of dual nationality from occupying certain sensitive public offices.Legal experts point to Section 19D and the Fifth Schedule of the Act, which identify offices considered critical to national security and sovereignty.Parliament reportedly concluded that the office of State Minister for Internal Affairs falls within the category of positions that require exclusive allegiance to Uganda.This legal interpretation effectively rendered Muganga ineligible despite his impressive professional credentials.Political observers say the decision demonstrates Parliament’s willingness to enforce statutory requirements regardless of an individual’s popularity or qualifications.

Tayebwa Defends The Decision

Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa defended the vetting process, insisting that Parliament was simply implementing existing laws.Sources within Parliament say committee members were unanimous that legal compliance had to take precedence over political considerations.”The law is very clear and Parliament must follow it,” a parliamentary source told this publication.Tayebwa reportedly informed legislators that 80 nominees had been cleared and returned to the President for appointment while a few cases remained pending due to procedural issues.The rejection of Muganga became the most talked-about outcome of the vetting exercise.

Opposition Weighs In

Leader of Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi is understood to have supported strict adherence to the law regardless of the nominee involved.Political analysts note that opposition legislators have consistently argued that legal requirements for public office should be applied equally to all candidates.Sources within Parliament indicate that opposition members of the committee insisted that making exceptions for politically connected individuals would set a dangerous precedent.For many legislators, the issue was not Muganga’s competence but whether the law allowed him to occupy the office he had been nominated for.

Sarah Birete Speaks Out

Anti-corruption activist Sarah Bireete said the controversy highlights the importance of conducting thorough background checks before appointments are announced.According to Bireete, appointing authorities should ensure that nominees satisfy all constitutional and statutory requirements before forwarding their names for vetting.She argued that Parliament’s role is to protect the integrity of public institutions and ensure that legal provisions are respected.Bireete also noted that the incident should spark broader discussions about whether Uganda’s laws governing dual citizenship and public office remain suitable for a modern globalized society.

From Classroom To Cabinet — And Back

For Dr. Muganga, the rejection marks a painful setback in what had been shaping into a remarkable political breakthrough.Widely known for his outspoken views on education reform, technology and innovation, Muganga has built a reputation as one of Uganda’s most visible academic leaders.Under his leadership, Victoria University has aggressively marketed itself as a modern institution focused on technology-driven learning and entrepreneurship.

Many young Ugandans view him as a symbol of professional success achieved through education and hard work.His appointment by President Museveni had therefore generated excitement among supporters who believed his experience in management and leadership would inject fresh ideas into government.However, critics questioned whether an academic administrator with no previous political experience was the right fit for the sensitive Internal Affairs portfolio.Those debates have now been overtaken by the citizenship controversy.

What Next For Muganga?

Political observers say the rejection does not necessarily mark the end of Muganga’s public service ambitions.Legal experts note that while certain offices remain restricted, there are other government positions that dual citizens may legally occupy.Some analysts believe President Museveni could consider him for another role that does not fall within the restricted category.Others argue that the episode may actually boost Muganga’s public profile by portraying him as a victim of technical legal barriers rather than political opposition. For now, however, his ministerial dream remains on hold.

A Lesson For Future Nominees

The rejection of Lawrence Muganga has become one of the biggest stories emerging from the latest cabinet vetting exercise.It serves as a reminder that while Uganda welcomes dual citizenship, the law still draws clear boundaries regarding who can occupy certain strategic offices.As Parliament continues to scrutinize presidential nominees, the message appears unmistakable: qualifications, popularity and presidential confidence alone are not enough.For anyone seeking to occupy sensitive state offices, compliance with citizenship requirements remains non-negotiable.And for Dr. Lawrence Muganga, a man who inspired many Ugandans through education and innovation, the road to Cabinet has been abruptly blocked by a legal provision many citizens barely knew existed until now.

A Lesson for Future Nominees

Meanwhile, the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU) has dismissed claims circulating on social media that Muganga’s rejection was linked to his ethnic background or alleged anti-Rwandan sentiments within Parliament. PLU Secretary General Daudi Kabanda said the Appointments Committee’s decision was based entirely on citizenship-related concerns and not on Muganga’s identity as a Munyarwanda. Kabanda noted that several Ugandan leaders of Rwandan heritage, including Ministers Aisha Ssekindi and Diana Mutasingwa, have previously been vetted and approved by Parliament without controversy. According to Kabanda, committee investigations reportedly established that Muganga held Ugandan, Canadian and Rwandan passports despite denying possession of a Rwandan passport during the vetting process. “The claim that he was rejected because he is a Munyarwanda is false, misleading and dangerous,” Kabanda said, arguing that the controversy should be viewed as a matter of legal compliance rather than ethnicity. His remarks added a fresh dimension to the debate, reinforcing Parliament’s position that citizenship requirements for sensitive public offices remain a critical consideration regardless of a nominee’s professional achievements or background.

The Appointments Committee, chaired by Speaker Jacob Marksons Oboth and deputised by Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa, began scrutinising ministerial nominees appointed by President Museveni last week as part of his new government lineup for the 2026–2031 term.The exercise attracted a host of senior political figures, including Vice President-designate Jessica Alupo and Prime Minister-designate Robinah Nabbanja, whose appointments had earlier received parliamentary approval. Also drawing attention were First Deputy Prime Minister-designate Rebecca Kadaga, Second Deputy Prime Minister-designate Crispus Kiyonga and Third Deputy Prime Minister-designate Lukia Nakadama.

Several veteran ministers and political heavyweights were also present as they sought Parliament’s endorsement to continue serving in Cabinet.Opposition legislators closely monitored the proceedings, with Leader of Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi taking part in the vetting sessions as a member of the committee.

Speaking shortly after his appearance, Tumwebaze said the discussions centred on his plans for Uganda’s agriculture sector, which remains the backbone of the country’s economy.”I had a good interaction with the Appointments Committee as they carried out their constitutional duty of vetting and assessing the suitability of ministerial appointees,” he said.Tumwebaze thanked Speaker Oboth, Deputy Speaker Tayebwa, Opposition Leader Ssenyonyi and other committee members for what he described as a cordial and collegial engagement.

The minister-designate also used the occasion to thank President Museveni for once again entrusting him with public office.”Once again, I thank H.E. President Museveni for giving me the opportunity to continue serving my country in the biggest sector of our economy—Agriculture,” Tumwebaze noted.Inside Parliament, security remained tight as ministers moved in and out of the committee rooms for the closed-door sessions. Sources indicated that most of the nominees are expected to sail through the process owing to their extensive government experience and the ruling NRM’s numerical strength in Parliament.The vetting exercise follows Parliament’s approval of an expanded Cabinet structure, increasing the number of Cabinet ministers and ministers of state to accommodate the new administration.Political analysts say the process is a crucial constitutional requirement intended to assess the competence, integrity and suitability of presidential appointees before they formally assume office

.

While many of the nominees are seasoned politicians, observers expect Parliament to use the sessions to seek accountability on government performance, service delivery and policy implementation in key sectors such as agriculture, health, education and infrastructure.

For Tumwebaze, the spotlight remains on whether he can accelerate agricultural transformation, boost farmer incomes and expand export markets at a time when the sector continues to face challenges ranging from climate change to fluctuating commodity prices.

The Appointments Committee is expected to continue vetting additional ministers throughout the week before forwarding its recommendations for approval.As the political drama unfolds behind Parliament’s doors, all eyes remain on which new faces will make it into Cabinet and whether any surprise objections emerge during the scrutiny process.

MPs Lose Patience

Several legislators have openly questioned how a project that was initially expected to take only a few years has dragged on for nearly a decade.Members of Parliament sitting on oversight committees recently demanded answers after reports showed that construction progress remains far below expected levels despite substantial government funding. According to findings cited in the Auditor General’s report, the project is significantly behind schedule, with completion estimates repeatedly revised.Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee members reportedly expressed concern that parliamentary authorities themselves appear uncertain about when the building will actually be completed.

Outgoing Budget Committee Chairperson Patrick Isiagi Opolot was quoted raising concerns that corruption could be one of the factors behind the prolonged delays, saying Parliament must establish what exactly has gone wrong.Other MPs argue that the delays have embarrassed Parliament, an institution tasked with holding other government agencies accountable.“How can Parliament demand accountability from ministries and agencies when its own building project has remained unfinished for years?” one legislator reportedly asked during discussions on the matter.

A Project Haunted by Delays

The construction of the new chambers began in 2017 after Parliament determined that the existing chamber had become too small for the growing number of legislators.Uganda’s current parliamentary chamber was originally designed in the 1950s to accommodate fewer than 100 legislators. Today, Parliament has more than 500 members, creating serious space challenges.

The new facility was expected to solve the problem by providing seating for hundreds of MPs as well as additional office space and support facilities. However, almost from the start, the project encountered obstacles.Early delays were blamed on difficulties in securing land documentation, design adjustments and relocation of major utility infrastructure around the construction site.Later, Parliament approved changes to the design, including plans for additional facilities such as a museum and expanded seating capacity, leading to further interruptions.Despite assurances from the contractor that lost time would be recovered, the project continued to miss completion deadlines.

Billions Spent, Questions Remain

The most troubling issue for legislators is the amount of money already invested. Reports indicate that more than Shs263 billion has so far been spent on the project, with the overall cost continuing to rise as construction timelines are extended.The Auditor General reportedly found that while the project should have reached nearly 70 percent completion during the review period, actual progress stood at around 49 percent.The completion date has reportedly been shifted multiple times, with the latest projections now stretching to 2027.  For many MPs, those figures are unacceptable.

Roko Under Intense Scrutiny

The spotlight has inevitably fallen on Roko Construction Limited, one of Uganda’s largest indigenous construction companies.The company has in recent years faced significant financial difficulties, prompting government intervention.In 2022, the government approved a controversial bailout package involving the purchase of preference shares worth more than Shs200 billion to keep the company afloat and protect ongoing public infrastructure projects.However, some legislators now argue that despite the financial rescue, several major projects under Roko continue to suffer delays.Apart from the parliamentary chambers, critics have pointed to concerns surrounding other government-funded projects associated with the contractor.This has led some MPs to ask whether Parliament should continue entrusting public projects to a contractor that repeatedly fails to meet deadlines.

Parliament Changes Payment System

Faced with mounting criticism, parliamentary authorities have already taken extraordinary measures. Last year former Speaker Anita Among revealed that Parliament had suspended direct payments to Roko and instead adopted a system where funds are paid directly to suppliers and service providers involved in the construction works.The move was intended to improve transparency and ensure that public funds directly support construction activities rather than disappear into administrative bottlenecks.The Speaker has also warned that terminating the contract outright could create even bigger fin

Public Anger Growing

Outside Parliament, many Ugandans are increasingly questioning why major government projects routinely exceed deadlines and budgets.The stalled chambers project has become a frequent topic of discussion on social media, where critics argue that taxpayers deserve clear explanations regarding how public money has been spent.Transparency activists say the project highlights broader weaknesses in project supervision, procurement processes and contractor management within government institutions.With Uganda facing demands for better healthcare, roads, schools and job creation, many citizens wonder whether billions tied up in unfinished projects represent value for money.

What Happens Next?

Parliament now faces a critical decision. Some legislators want the contract reviewed and potentially terminated if investigators establish negligence or mismanagement.Others fear that replacing the contractor midway could create legal disputes and further delays, ultimately costing taxpayers even more. For now, the demand for a probe appears to be gathering momentum.If Parliament proceeds with a full investigation, officials from Roko, parliamentary administrators, project consultants and government ministries could all be summoned to explain how a project launched with optimism became one of Uganda’s most controversial construction ventures.Until then, the unfinished structure standing beside Parliament remains a visible reminder of the growing gap between project promises and project delivery

The Shs68 Billion Document That Set Off Alarm Bells

At the centre of the controversy is a document attributed to civil society organisation AGORA under the banner “Uganda Parliament Exhibition II.”The document allegedly lists more than Shs68 billion that reportedly passed through various parliamentary staff members and parliamentary structures between 2023 and 2026.The single biggest entry is recorded as Parliamentary Commission Operations, which allegedly received nearly Shs39 billion.The remaining amounts are linked to individual names, with some entries running into billions of shillings.

Among the largest figures listed are:

Leonard Okema – Shs5.51 billion

Ranny Ismail – Shs4.45 billion

Chris Obore – Shs3.22 billion

Daniel Adilo – Shs2.95 billion

Kaaya Raja Semalulu – Shs2.41 billion

Perhaps most puzzling is an entry labelled simply “No Name” carrying an allocation of more than Shs1 billion. The figures have left many Ugandans asking a simple question: Where exactly did all this money go?

Denials Deepen The Mystery

What has made the controversy even more intriguing are claims that some of the individuals whose names appear on the document allegedly denied ever receiving the money attributed to them.If those claims are true, investigators face several difficult questions.

Were payments wrongly recorded?

Were names used as conduits for operational transactions?

Did the money reach different beneficiaries?

Or are the records themselves inaccurate?

Without access to payment vouchers, bank statements, approval documents and accountability reports, the public is left guessing. And in a country where public finance scandals have repeatedly made headlines, suspicion naturally fills the information vacuum.

Is The Among Probe Missing The Bigger Picture?

While public attention has largely focused on Speaker Anita Among, critics argue that concentrating investigations on a single office risks creating the impression of selective accountability.Political analysts note that Parliament is a large institution with numerous departments, commissions and administrative structures.If questionable transactions occurred, they argue, responsibility cannot automatically be narrowed to one office without first examining the broader system through which funds were approved, processed and disbursed.This perception of selective scrutiny has fuelled accusations that the ongoing investigations may be more political than institutional. For many observers, the test of credibility will be whether every office implicated by available records receives equal scrutiny.

Recruitment Questions Refuse To Go Away

The controversy does not stop at money. Fresh questions are also emerging about recruitment practices within the Parliamentary Service.Critics have questioned whether all positions filled since the start of the 11th Parliament followed legally required procedures, including public advertisement of vacancies and competitive recruitment processes.Documents circulating online have listed dozens of individuals said to be employed in different parliamentary offices, including some attached to the Office of the Deputy Speaker.The publication of these names has intensified calls for Parliament to disclose how vacancies were advertised, how interviews were conducted and how successful candidates were selected.

What Forensic Auditors Would Look For

Financial experts caution against drawing conclusions solely from lists of names and figures. According to auditors, proving wrongdoing requires much more than a spreadsheet.

Investigators would need access to:

Bank transaction records

Payment vouchers

Procurement documents

Internal approval memos

Accountability reports

Payroll databases

Audit findings

Only then can investigators establish whether money was properly authorised, correctly accounted for and delivered to its intended purpose.In many institutions, officials sign for operational funds on behalf of departments, projects or committees rather than for personal benefit.That distinction could prove critical in determining whether any laws were broken.

Public Trust On The Line

The controversy arrives at a time when public confidence in government institutions is already under pressure.Good governance advocates argue that Parliament, as the nation’s law-making body, should set the highest standards of transparency.They insist that citizens deserve clear explanations whenever large sums of public money are involved.For them, the issue goes beyond Anita Among, individual parliamentary officials or political rivalries. It is about whether taxpayers can trust the systems designed to safeguard public resources.

The Questions That Won’t Go Away

Until independent investigators verify the authenticity of the leaked documents and examine the supporting records, the allegations remain just that—allegations.Yet the sheer scale of the figures involved means the matter is unlikely to disappear.

Ugandans want answers.

Why do some names appear against billions of shillings?

What exactly was covered under Parliamentary Commission Operations?

Why are some recipients allegedly denying the transactions?

And perhaps most importantly, why do investigations appear focused on a few individuals while broader questions about Parliament’s financial and recruitment systems remain unresolved?Until those questions are answered, many citizens will continue to view the Anita Among probe not as a full investigation—but as an incomplete story.

By Investigative Desk

The President’s Fury

According to highly placed sources, Museveni became increasingly irritated after receiving intelligence reports that billions meant for maintaining Uganda’s national CCTV surveillance system had become trapped in a web of kickbacks, delayed approvals, and internal sabotage.“The President was very angry,” said a source familiar with the investigations. “He felt embarrassed because this is a security project he personally championed after the wave of assassinations and murders in the country.”The CCTV project, originally installed with heavy involvement from Chinese technology giant Huawei, became one of Museveni’s prized security investments after high-profile killings rocked Kampala between 2017 and 2019.The system was supposed to modernize crime detection and help security agencies monitor criminal networks. Billions were pumped into the project, and the President repeatedly defended the massive expenditure.

The Shs31 Billion Mystery

However, insiders now say the maintenance contracts became a feeding ground for powerful officials.At the centre of the storm is Dealan Associates Ltd, a contractor reportedly tasked with maintaining parts of the surveillance system after Huawei’s operational involvement reduced following international sanctions complications in 2019.According to preliminary findings, the Ministry of Finance released Shs31.37 billion intended for the contractor’s payment. But despite the money being available, the payments allegedly stalled mysteriously.Investigators now suspect that some officials allegedly demanded huge kickbacks before authorizing the release of the funds.A middleman identified as Hassan Serunjoji has reportedly become a key figure in the investigations. Sources claim he acted as the go-between in secret negotiations involving bribes linked to the stalled payments.The allegations have since triggered panic within the Internal Affairs Ministry and police leadership.

Why Musanyufu’s Name Shocked Many

For many Ugandans, however, the biggest shock is seeing Gen. Joseph Musanyufu dragged into the scandal.Musanyufu has long been viewed as one of Museveni’s most trusted technocrats — a disciplined military officer who rose through the ranks quietly without the political drama associated with many powerful figures. Yet insiders say the President was furious that such allegations could emerge under his watch.One source compared Museveni’s reaction to “chasing a village chicken thief.” “The President felt betrayed,” the source said. “He believed these are people who should protect public resources, not fight over commissions.”The forced leave announcement was delivered with unusual urgency, signaling that Museveni wanted immediate distance between the suspects and government operations as investigations intensify.

Aggrey Wunyi Under Pressure

Dr. Aggrey Wunyi’s role has attracted particular attention because of his powerful position as Undersecretary in charge of Police finances and support services.As accounting officer, Wunyi oversees procurement, budgeting, financial approvals, and logistical support within the Uganda Police Force — one of the country’s largest spending institutions.Investigators reportedly believe that key payment approvals linked to the CCTV maintenance contract passed through offices under his supervision.AIGP Felix Baryamwitsaki, another senior officer placed on leave, is also under scrutiny over his alleged involvement in decisions surrounding the surveillance system operations and contract management.

Public Anger Grows

But while State House appears determined to present the crackdown as proof of Museveni’s commitment to fighting corruption, many Ugandans remain skeptical. On social media and radio talk shows, citizens have been asking tough questions. Why forced leave instead of arrests?Why are small thieves quickly jailed while powerful officials are merely “rested” at home? And perhaps most importantly — are these the real masterminds, or just sacrificial lambs?Critics argue that corruption within government procurement systems has become too deeply rooted to involve only a few individuals. “This cannot happen without protection from very powerful people,” one political analyst said.Others believe the President may be trying to calm growing public anger over corruption scandals that continue to erupt despite repeated anti-corruption speeches.

National Security Fears

In recent years, Uganda has witnessed scandal after scandal involving billions of taxpayer money disappearing through inflated contracts, ghost procurements, and dubious compensation claims. The CCTV scandal is particularly sensitive because it touches directly on national security.Security experts warn that any disruption in maintaining the surveillance system could weaken crime detection capabilities across major urban centres.Already, insiders claim sections of the CCTV infrastructure have reportedly suffered technical failures due to delayed maintenance and disputes over payments.If true, this raises serious concerns about whether corruption may have compromised public safety itself.

More Big Names Could Emerge

Meanwhile, sources say investigators are now examining bank transactions, procurement records, and communication between officials and private contractors.More names could reportedly emerge as the probe deepens.

Inside government circles, tension is rising.

Some officials fear the scandal could expose a much larger network involving procurement cartels that operate quietly across ministries and security agencies.Others suspect the forced leave could simply be the beginning of a political survival battle among rival power centres within the state.

Will This Case Go Anywhere?

For now, Museveni appears determined to project authority and control. But whether the investigations will end in real prosecutions — or fade away like many previous scandals — remains the million-dollar question.Ugandans have seen dramatic anti-corruption announcements before, only for cases to disappear quietly once public attention shifts elsewhere.Still, the image of powerful men suddenly pushed aside has captured public imagination.For many ordinary citizens struggling with poverty and unemployment, the scandal represents a painful reminder of how billions meant for national development can allegedly vanish through elite corruption networks.As investigators continue digging into the Shs31 billion CCTV saga, one thing is already clear: the battle inside Uganda’s security and political establishment is far from over.And for Gen. Joseph Musanyufu, the once-trusted insider now finds himself at the centre of a storm that could redefine his legacy forever.

By Our Investigations Desk

FROM TRUSTED GENERAL TO STATE TARGET