After a nasty divorce with his former party, the National Unity Platform (NUP), Nyendo-Mukungwe legislator Mathias Mpuuga went on to form his own party, the Democratic Front (DF). Many thought this would be his platform to contest for president in 2026, but this week, he announced his intention to contest for a fourth term as MP. Monitor’s Arthur Arnold Wadero had a wide-ranging interview with him.
Mid this year, you launched the Democratic Front. As party president, many expected you to be in the presidential race. What happened?
First of all, political parties by their nature are meant to provide leadership and leaders to the nation. They are supposed to be the midwives of political leaders. And when those leaders are produced by political parties, it is up to those parties to make a choice as to what they want to do with those leaders. The decision to stand for the presidency of the country was never supposed to be a personal decision, as long as l am subjected to the whims of the party.
Whereas I harboured and still have the ambitions, at some stage probably they will come to fruition. But in the meantime, the party outed what they called the party’s minimum political agenda to cover the period of the ongoing political season and discounted the presidency as one of its minimum programmes. And they gave reasons. The DF, from the onset, intended that for an election and the presidency to be consequential, we needed reforms, electoral and political reforms, to even give credence to this argument.
What is the update on the reforms you submitted to Parliament?
We had the two constitutional amendment Bills. We had an Election Commission Amendment Bill, we had the Presidential Election Amendment Bill, the Parliamentary Election Amendment Bill, Referendum Amendment Bill, Local Government Amendment Bill, and the Political Parties Amendment Bill. All these Bills were meant to try and crack what is a state of political inertia in the country. And while we tabled all of them before Parliament, and they were received by the Speaker’s Office and the Clerk, only the Political Parties’ (Amendment) Bill was given leave. But even when it was given leave, it has never been given a Certificate of Financial Implication to be able to proceed to the next stage.
The presidential campaigns have started. We have seven Opposition candidates. Is this the group that will finally uproot President Museveni? Unfortunately, the spirit is willing, but the bodies and action speak differently. Of course, I’ve seen even some of them pressing self-defeating buttons. I’m wondering whether they are actually committed to the campaign of defeating Gen Museveni. I have seen some of them spending their little energy fighting colleagues in the Opposition, and then I wondered whether they are committed or actually hired.
But also, I don’t want to speak like a political novice. The political Opposition failed to organise prior to the election. Probably, you people in the media need to put these questions to the various leaders of the political parties in the contest: Why didn’t they organise? Why are they pretending to be organising during elections when they had four years to prepare?
We have a presidential race in which two contestants got more than 90 percent of the vote in 2021. What do you say to those calling for a single Opposition candidate?
I think there are two layers to this argument. First of all, it’s not simply a single candidate to the Opposition that is an issue because that’s a no-brainer. That matter has been discussed over several electoral cycles we have gone over. To recollect, the TDA [The Democratic Alliance], which became a debacle eventually, there are several attempts to a single candidate which have not given us any outcome. But then you say if that has failed, what are the other possibilities that can help the Opposition to have a chance at power? That’s why some of us talk about clawback legislation. Clawback legislation is the kind of legal regime that can give the Opposition a chance to compete. Which is why we were debating and proposing a departure from the current winner-takes-all system.
Because if we are going to have an opportunity as the Opposition to really make a demand to the population to give us power, we must have some opportunity at entry clawback legislation, which will mean we have more MPs in Parliament, and it will mean you have more representation in Local Government. It’s a form of power-sharing that the Opposition can take advantage of if you did that.
DP president general Norbert Mao, while taking over the leadership of IPOD [Inter-party Organisation for Dialogue] recently, said the transition is already taking place behind closed doors. Do Ugandans deserve to have a say in what happens to them after President Museveni’s 40 years in power?
Well, even the wrong clock at some time counts, right? I have spoken variously before that our political DNA is a civil-military relationship. The time Gen Museveni changed the Uganda People’s Deence Forces (UPDF) structure, it was part of managing the transition, albeit in a manner I call fraudulent because it was done without the knowledge of Parliament and other stakeholders. The process of changing the UPDF structure was not consulted upon.
And as long as our politics remains a civil-military relationship, one part of the relationship has migrated; only the civil side has not yet migrated. If it goes on without the participation of the population through their institutions, people, institutions, the political parties, civil society groups, cultural institutions, and religious institutions, it is a fraudulent transition.
What should a transition process for Uganda look like?
The transition conversation must be an honest conversation between those in power and those without power. Between those who intend to keep power and those who aspire to take power, there must be an honest conversation preceded by an agreeable framework of issues to be discussed, the mode of implementation of those issues, including the nature of legislation that must be undertaken to midwives.
That is the nature of transition that I think we need to engage in, not a transition where people seek positions in government. I’m talking about an honest conversation about governance of this country, including a debate on a new national consensus, which is the new Constitution. Your former party, NUP, recently announced its parliamentary flagbearers, and some MPs who were previously thought to be close to you lost the party card.
Are you going to woo them as DF?
First of all, I left the NUP a long time ago and, therefore, whatever they do with themselves is their business. Secondly, for those members who were denied tickets, they should have known better because NUP works without a constitution. So, there’s no premise for them to explain to you why you have no ticket. Thirdly, the DF is a political party. We are open to receiving every citizen who believes that the DF could be a vehicle worth working with to the end. Then fourth, if any member of the NUP denied a ticket on account of their closings, to me, that kind of inductiveness is unacceptable. I think it’s very dangerous for our parties.
Parties should never mirror the expressions of individual characters. They should only mirror the expressions of the people and the membership.
Mr Medard Sseggona is one of those who were denied the NUP party ticket. Have you talked to him about joining DF?
The Honourable Sseggona and I are not involved in politics as the first issue. We are brothers. We actually speak every day on several matters. If they are not about our practice as lawyers, they are about our families, they’re about our kingdom, they’re about our country, and they are about Parliament. We talk about so many things. We even spoke when he was denied a NUP ticket. The decision of where he goes is a personal decision. I cannot compel him even when we share so much in common.
Kampala Central MP Muhammad Nsereko recently went hard on you with the allegation that you rescinded your support for him as he sought to contest for the presidency. What do you make of his claims?
I was not around, I was not in the country, but I heard what he said. I have not spoken to him, but reading what he said, I can only advise him as my brother. I want to ask him to do a self-evaluation; where he wants to go, if he wants to still keep the confidence of the people.
Your parting shots?
My parting issue, especially to the Opposition, is to continue speaking to each other even when there are so many issues over which we disagree, including issues of candidates. Yes, we disagree on who is standing where, for what position. But the one door which should never close is the door over which we speak.