Ofwono Opondo Dares Muhoozi to Walk Kampala Without Armed Escorts.

Ladies and gentlemen, it looks like Ofwono Opondo is not backing down from calling out Muhoozi Kainerugaba over what he describes as lawlessness. During yesterday’s Capital Gang show, Opondo argued that anyone seeking to replace President Museveni must demonstrate greater tolerance than Museveni himself, rather than resorting to crude displays of power. But he did not stop there. Opondo threw down a direct challenge to Muhoozi: if he believes that guns, military escorts and the threat of force are enough to sustain him in power, then let him walk through downtown Kampala without guns or escorts. That is a remarkable challenge, and it raises a fundamental question: is political authority built on public consent, or on the fear generated by armed protection? Now, ladies and gentlemen, do not get it twisted. Ofwono Opondo has not suddenly joined our side. This does not mean he has embraced liberal democracy, human rights or the principles of accountable government. We should not confuse a disagreement within the ruling establishment with a conversion to democratic ideals. What this appears to reveal is a struggle over succession and loyalty. Opondo may be challenging Muhoozi not because he opposes the system itself, but because his political allegiance remains with Museveni rather than Museveni’s son. In other words, he may have a problem with who inherits the throne, not with the idea of having a throne in the first place. And this is the second time in one week that Opondo has publicly challenged Muhoozi. The question, therefore, is not simply why Opondo is criticising Muhoozi. The bigger question is what is happening inside the ruling establishment that is making such criticism increasingly visible. Is this a genuine warning against the politics of force, or is it a family succession battle playing out in public? Because in politics, ladies and gentlemen, even when powerful people disagree, we must look beyond their words and examine their interests. A quarrel within the establishment is not necessarily a fight for democracy. Sometimes, it is simply a fight over who gets to control the establishment.