By Denis Nyombi (Senior Counsel-Dennis Nyombi & Co.Advocates)
In his book Sowing the Mustard Seed, Y.K. Museveni recounts the events following the failed invasion during the reign of Idi Amin. According to Museveni, after the invasion collapsed, Amin’s soldiers ran amok, committing atrocities and killing many people, including Francis Walugembe, Shaban Nkutu, Ben Kiwanuka, Nekemiya Bananuka, Alex Oera, Oshua Wakoli, and Picho Ali. These individuals were captured alive during the disorganized invasion and subsequently murdered. The soldiers, illiterate and uncultured, thought they could intimidate the people of Uganda with such brutality. Instead, their actions sparked greater resolve among the population and fueled more hatred for the regime. Amin’s army, a gang of ignoramuses acting extra-judicially even while in power, posed a grave threat to the unarmed people of Uganda. Life had become so cheap that a single unfavorable opinion from an illiterate non-commissioned officer (NCO) could cost someone their life. This was the tyranny that the people sought to overthrow through a protracted armed struggle.
Fast forward to 2016, when Uganda held its first-ever presidential debate. Dr. Kizza Besigye, in his opening remarks, recalled a significant event in his life that connected him to the struggle for liberation. He shared how, in February 1981, he had been incarcerated in the very building where the debate was taking place. Many of the people who had been imprisoned with him at the time were never seen again. Some of these were elderly and respectable individuals. His arrest, along with those of others, had been prompted by the war that broke out shortly after the 1980 elections, which Besigye described as rigged. At the time, Besigye had supported candidate Museveni.
The war that raged from 1980 to 1986 has since been referred to as Uganda’s “liberation war.” Dr. Besigye and Mr. Museveni remain central figures in the historical narrative of that conflict. However, whether the war truly constituted a liberation struggle is a matter of debate, with some of its participants expressing strong reservations.
From 1962 to 1980, Uganda was embroiled in political turmoil, and it is undeniable that the country experienced a period of darkness. Those who lived through these times often share similar stories, echoing one another’s experiences. These stories are primarily passed down to the millennial generation, who sometimes struggle to believe that 27 men, with little more than a meager arsenal, could bring down an entire government in just five years. More troubling to them, however, is the motivation behind the rebellion.
The story is often met with two shades of doubt. First, there is the question of whether the cause of the rebellion was truly for the common good, to liberate the people and bring about equity, or whether it was simply the liberation of certain individuals—specifically, those at the top of the “liberation struggle.” The second doubt revolves around whether the outcome of the struggle can truly be called a liberation. If it were, the fruits of that liberation should be visible and indisputable, yet the results remain in question.
True liberation should be clear and evident in all spheres of society, particularly in the functioning of electoral systems and institutions. The political system at the time was rife with irregularities, a fact that was well-known but not often discussed in contemporary times. The state of the electoral process, both then and now, remains a point of contention.
Even today, Museveni and Besigye continue to offer distinct perspectives on Uganda’s progress. One believes that the nation is on the right path, while the other contends that it is not. This disagreement leads the millennial generation to conclude that, since 1986, there remains much-unfinished business. The liberation that was supposed to bring about change is still incomplete.
This unfinished liberation is not just about the people—it extends to major government institutions, the independence of the judiciary, the electoral system, the legislature, and the equitable distribution of national resources. True liberation would mean freeing these systems from the grip of political control, ensuring that the rule of law prevails, and that all citizens have a fair share of the nation’s resources. This is the liberation that remains elusive, an unfinished struggle that shall never truly reach its goal until these systems are set free.
