Bobi Wine not fit to lead Uganda, says Mpuuga

When the applicant took the matter to court he asked the court to give its position on the powers of the Parliamentary Commission to do what it did, and overall the powers of the commission to determine the welfare of its members.

And well as I disagreed with a few issues therein, the judge explored the matter beyond the prayers of the applicant. 

While the judge dismissed the prayers of the applicant to which I concurred – I had issues with one of his decrees in which he advised the PSST [Secretary to the Treasury] to find the Clerk to Parliament culpable in not guiding the commission in technical matters. But the matters that are technical, if you look at it, were the questions of determining where that ex gratia falls.

It’s not a matter of legality but it was a matter of determining the charts of accounts of the commission and I don’t think that’s a matter for which a senior technical person would be found culpable. I think it was the math of nomenclature, not illegality. 

So that’s where I disagreed with the judgement of the court but the rest of it, some of the matters explored by the judge bordered on his complaint that politicians overpay themselves. Well, I disagree.

The judge warned that if nothing is done you politicians are going to take the entire Budget of this country…

It’s because it’s politicians who are in the limelight for the better part. When we made the Administration of the Judiciary Act we made the life of judges very comfortable. 

I don’t know of any other public servant who is given retirement pay which is the same as he or she was getting during service, apart from judges. So, I don’t want to be drawn into making this comparison but what I’m trying to say is that his lordship was unnecessarily tough. Our working conditions are not the same. Public expectations aren’t the same. We work in different conditions and, therefore, we need to respect each other’s working conditions and only try to support each other in ensuring that our work and our remuneration don’t disadvantage the common good.

The judge raised the issues of morals. That Shs500m you got wasn’t morally acceptable and even your critics have pointed out that you did nothing special. Shs500m for exactly what?

Well, I occupied a constitutional office. I don’t know whether anybody would want to put a value on that office. The ex gratia has nothing to do with the character of a person in office, but it has everything to do with the weight of the office. Because the LoP’s office is a constitutional office. It’s like the Prime Minister. Like the Vice President. Who is properly retired? Are you aware that in retirement these are permanently facilitated but the LoP’s office was only given a one-off ex gratia? 

Do you want to compare that with other officers in retirement who not only get monthly stipends but also earn annual stipends – vehicles and the rest?

Do you know that in that office you entirely commit to doing the work while you are given ex gratia why did the Administration of Parliament Act give the commission powers to make that call because the commission’s wisdom would judge the nature of that work in that office? Because you can only do that work and because it’s a public office we work in the name of the people. Y

ou carry with you the honour of the people and the honour of the country such that when you leave that office you don’t misrepresent the quality that goes with that office. Something to keep you with that honour is the commission you decided. The same other public servants are treated to keep the honour of the office - that’s the objective of that award.

If somebody wants to put the weight of the work that I did on the scale – in monetary terms – and attach monetary value then that’s upon them. It’s not my business to attach value but I can tell how much public funds I saved while I was in occupation as a result of my oversight duties. In the manner of my work – comparing it with the ex gratia – I’m afraid it is way, way unacceptable. It’s undermining my sacrifice.

Do you agree with the Speaker’s position that this issue, as a result of the judgement, shouldn’t be debated anymore by Parliament?

I think it’s not about the Speaker. It’s about the law. The Speaker doesn’t have his or her law but the written law. That’s what the law says. Those are the rules of the House because the Speaker can’t circumvent the options available to members who want this matter to be alive. They have two options: to either challenge the ruling of the Speaker and the rules available.

The rules are clear on how you challenge the ruling of the Speaker. Second, they can still challenge that same matter in courts of law. So, their doors aren’t closed but their latest action, I think they are for accountability. I think they are trying to account for their masters and they have the right to account.

You have probably been around that Parliament and you know the motivation of hustle like honourable [Theodore] Ssekikubo [Lwamiyaga County] and his ilk. We have been fighting for the rule of law. We have been fighting for good governance and accountability. I don’t remember one Ssekikubo and his ilk putting much energy into ensuring that the country goes on the path of democratisation. He is so eager to benefit from so many unconstitutional actions and then he has no moral authority to appear to be the man who wants the law to prevail. Unfortunately, he is a lawyer – so misleading his colleagues in believing that a shouting match on the floor would give a remedy, for me, is an act of accountability to his masters.

You talk of motive and their masters. Who could their masters be?

You interview them. Probably they will volunteer.

Let’s talk about the allegation that it’s you who planted Daniel Bwette to petition court over this service ward...

I don’t think it makes sense for me to respond to that because I don’t know the petitioner. If anybody wants to know this person, do you have to go to the moon? I even remember Daily Monitor carried a story about this petitioner. Even other newspapers and other media houses. Why wouldn’t one Ssekikubo desirous of finding out this person go out of his way to find this person?

From the time you were LoP to date your opponents have been accusing you of being cosy with Speaker Anita Among, an NRM member. That the two of you are close and she seems to protect you all the time... When has she protected me? When NUP wanted to get you out of as the commissioner she guarded you…

She didn’t appoint me commissioner. She is the custodian of the rules of the House. When the party wrote to remove me as a commissioner she reminded them of the laws. I was expecting them to revert with the rebuttal. The law is the law. It’s not about the Speaker. Also I think some of my friends are petty, in a way. The Speaker is a Speaker for Members of Parliament. She was using the law and also quoting precedents from the past Parliaments in which I was a part. You remember the 9th Parliament, the Honourable Rebecca Kadaga protected the Ssekikubos when their party was hounding them and in protecting them she invoked the rules and the law. That’s the job of the Speaker.

Another accusation is that you are the brainchild of MP Richard Lumu’s proposed amendments that some claim are aimed at clipping the wings of the biggest Opposition party in the country.DM bodytext: The Honourable Lumu presented his Bill in the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, in which I’m a member. And members listened to him but for anybody to say that I’m behind him is to claim that Honourable Lumu is daft. He is a seasoned lawyer and politician. He understands statecraft much as I do. And for anybody to make that claim is a mark of laziness. By failing to table a single Bill on the floor Parliament they want to blame me. I’m yet to listen to any Bill or motion of my successor [Joel Ssenyonyi] to change the course of politics. Now they say: this has come, it must be Mpuuga. Some will now blame me for their daftness.

We are where you and your political party are at the point of no return. Recently your party president, Robert Kyagulanyi, basically accused you of being a mole. That you tried to register People Power as a political party…

I think Mr Kyagulanyi was trying to communicate something to the world. Namely, that he is not serious. Because if you are a serious person who wants to rule this country you can’t go out of your way and simply make claims so that you are happy. You make claims to try to taint a comrade just because you want to misinform the public. It’s very unfortunate. I thought over time Mr Kyagulanyi would change because he has a problem inherently. I thought over time by working with him he would change and be a different person.

When you raise a challenge for him to respond to, he looks at you as a rival. He looks at me as [Ugandan artistes Jose] Chameleone or Bebe Cool. Therefore, he is still into those musical wars. So, the claim he made was most unfortunate and I hope one day he will have the humility to tell the world that he lied and he apologises to me. For a serious person, I thought he was serious, but by making that allegation he was confirming that he wasn’t serious enough to rule this country.

By making frivolous false claims to taint a comrade so that you can have matters your way that‘s not leadership.

NUP leaders have made it clear if it wasn’t for Kyagulanyi you wouldn’t have been LoP. That you rode on the NUP wave and now you have turned out to be an ingrate?

Let us imagine there is NUP and I’m a beneficiary. Who was the owner to whom I must be grateful? I was part and parcel of every investiture activity that led to the formation of NUP and it took immense sacrifice from everyone. 

It took a lot of imagination of the possibilities for us to say: Yes, let us start this and you see that’s how we breed dictators for anybody to believe that was his thing. A party is a common property. It's public property and for anyone to lay claim that he is dispensing favours from a party is an act of a dictator in the making.

By doing the work that I did, Mr Kyagulanyi became runners-up in the election. I concur his election was stolen but officially we say he was runners-up. And by virtue of that position [being runners-up], he has a voice from within and without. 

He must be grateful. What did he know about Parliament and governance? In doing the work to support each other we have been trying to shape him into somebody who can lead. So, it’s not a question that I became LoP by virtual of favour or somebody was dispensing a favour in a party that’s democratic is most unfortunate.

You know, because of the work I did in Buganda, in particular, we were able to get 55 Members of Parliament in Buganda. I moved every inch of this Buganda territory.

It seems some of your former Ssuubi allies have turned against you following this fallout with Kyagulanyi...

I don’t want to talk about people who are alive but I know each of these individuals you are talking about. I know their petty thinking. I also know the character of each but because these are old buddies, there are things I never say about people I have worked with even when we have disagreed. I will remain respectful. I see one of them wanting to appease Mr Kyagulanyi. Every time she has a microphone the first thing in her mouth is my name. I have seen probably serious leaders trek to Kyagulanyi’s home with goats, cocks, and matooke and I’m like: is this what politics is all about? So, for me, I’m not about to do that. But if Kyagulanyi has succeeded in taking my old colleagues by promising them heaven on earth I pray that they don’t forget me when they reach their heaven.

So basically, you are saying a cult has been createdDM bodytext: You can see the build-up. I have worked with Dr Kizza Besigye for all these years. I have worked with Norbert Mao with all his troubles. I worked for so many years with Dr Paul Ssemogerere and the others. I never saw any of them at any one time calling and intimidating people because of their views.

So, the country must be worried about the possibility of building a dictator. It should be a concern. And there seems to be no return. The other day you saw him declaring himself a presidential candidate. Which party organ appointed him to be the party candidate? So, he is effectively saying that nobody should raise.

In light of what has happened in terms of questioning the internal mechanisms within NUP, do you have any regrets in how NUP was formed?

There was no problem legally with the way NUP was formed. The problems arose after the formation. Because Mr Kyagulanyi and a small cabal of individuals close to him tinkered with the party constitution and inserted fresh pages in the constitution. The other day I heard him talking about morals and values - so if you alter or change a document which is a pact between you and colleagues to suit your interests, can we speak about values? If you can change the party’s constitution to suit your interests what else can we trust you with? Can you speak about values? That was the problem. In the beginning, all was okay.

With that background, we are going into the 2026 campaign fever and you have proposed a raft of amendments. What is the intention of this?

The intention is twofold: One is to give this country a chance at a free and fair election. Second is to give political actors a chance to compete on a fair platform and when that’s done then all of us will have a fair chance at the polls. The current legal regime is sharply tilted against any possibility of a free and fair playing field. And the political Opposition has no chance whatsoever under the current arrangement.

So, what I’m trying to come up with isn’t entirely what the country would need now but I’m trying to propose clawback legislation on the dictatorship of 40 years. You can never expect a regime of 40 years to surrender at a single go. 

But if you are smart and you can speak to some people across the aisle then you can undertake some clawback legislation and try not to incapacitate but try to limit the influence of a single party over the country because as a country we have stagnated. Our democracy is stagnating. 

If we don’t undertake clawback legislation it can only get worse before getting better because I have heard colleagues saying that ‘these things are impossible. Under Gen Museveni, these things are an improbability’ and I have this to tell them: Whatever we fear under Gen Museveni has happened. Whatever we thought was too bad has befallen us. Whatever we feared has visited us politically, economically and socially. The best we can do is do some clawback and not prepare the Opposition and the country for the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is allowing Gen Museveni to succeed himself.

I do not doubt in my mind that the next election will be a transition election and therefore a forward-looking Opposition must be trying to look for spaces that will ensure they won’t emerge from that election much worse than we are. And the hurry I have seen in some politicians claiming their candidature is frivolous for me.

Are you already looking beyond 2026?

The next government will implement some of the proposals I will make if they see the light of day. I have no idea what the next government will be like. And as a legislator or statesman, I must look beyond 2026 because I can never legislate for the space I’m occupying. I must legislate beyond. I must legislate for posterity. If you are going to have a durable constitutional order then we must be able to legislate for posterity, not for something we expect to benefit from it.

Analysts have poked holes in your proposed amendments saying they don’t go far enough in terms of changing how the Electoral Commission is constituted. They say your proposals aren’t radical enough.

That’s why when I addressed the nation, through a presser, I’m only making my proposals. And once I get leave from the House, which I could ask, maybe next week because I’m working on the final techniques of the memoranda and the draft Bill – which isn’t a small job, I hope by next week I will be ready and once I get leave then I will embark on consultation and through consultations I will be able to accommodate views. 

I can’t say my Bills are exhaustive otherwise that will be being a wiseacre of highest level. I expect the public, I expect civil society, and cultural and religious institutions to input because I have not constituted myself into the Constituent Assembly. 

Therefore, my views aren’t final but I wanted to give the country a chance to debate, especially Ministry of Justice has slept on duty then a Member of Parliament desirous of seeing change in the country has a duty. The cardinal role of an MP is to legislate. That’s what I’m trying to do.