Uganda’s Ministers Have Gone Off Script — And Everyone Has a Microphone!

Ladies and gentlemen, Uganda’s political circus is getting harder to distinguish from a government in open disarray. The contradictions are piling up, and the latest developments are exposing a serious communication problem within the Museveni administration. First, Adonia Ayebare threatens that Uganda could withdraw from the International Criminal Court, accusing it of undermining national sovereignty and disproportionately targeting African officials. Then Norbert Mao publicly pushes back, arguing that Ayebare’s remarks could damage Uganda’s own candidate, Olara Otunnu, in the race for UN Secretary-General. Mao’s message is blunt: how can Uganda campaign for a candidate who believes in international law while publicly attacking an institution Uganda voluntarily joined? And instead of keeping the disagreement behind closed doors, the two ministers are exchanging pointed messages in public. Mao even tells Ayebare that when Otunnu’s campaign dies, his fingerprints will be all over the murder weapon. That is not the language of a government presenting a united diplomatic front. It is a public dispute over whether one minister’s political messaging is undermining another national objective. Then comes the New York Times article by Megan K. Stack, examining surveillance, revealing abuses and the authoritarian direction of Uganda’s political environment. The UPDF, through Acting Director of Defence Public Information Chris Magezi, has rejected the allegations against Muhoozi Kainerugaba, describing them as unfounded and accusing Western media of running a campaign against him. But here is the problem with simply dismissing the story as misguided reporting: serious allegations require serious answers, not merely angry statements. The claims concerning Muhoozi and the treatment of Kakwenza Rukirabashaija remain disputed. The military denies that Muhoozi ever met Kakwenza, while the allegations deserve scrutiny and a response grounded in verifiable evidence. Look at the bigger picture. One official is threatening to leave an international court. Another is warning that the threat could sabotage Uganda’s diplomatic ambitions. The military is fighting back against international reporting about its commander. And all of this is unfolding in public, where every contradiction becomes another headline. Is this simply a series of separate disagreements, or does it reveal a deeper problem with coordination, accountability and the government’s response to criticism?