By Ben Musanje
It was a tense May evening in 2011 at State House Entebbe. Just days after his grand swearing-in ceremony at Kololo, Uganda’s long-serving leader, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, sat down for his first major interview. The gardens were glowing under floodlights, but politically, the atmosphere was anything but calm.
Across from him sat Kenyan journalist Jeff Koinange, who wasted no time confronting the issue that had gripped Uganda and drawn global attention. Why was opposition leader Kizza Besigye constantly being arrested? Why was he being pepper-sprayed? And why did he insist on walking to work in defiance of police warnings?
Museveni had just secured 68% of the vote, according to the electoral commission, while Besigye received 26%. Yet instead of post-election calm, Uganda was facing street protests, running battles with police, and growing international scrutiny.
During the interview, Museveni strongly defended the actions of security forces. He argued that police were justified in stopping Besigye from walking because of what had happened days earlier. According to him, Besigye had agreed with authorities to clear the road within an hour but instead allegedly spent nearly nine hours on the road, creating disruption and tension.
Museveni claimed that as a result of that standoff, some visiting dignitaries who had attended his swearing-in were pelted with stones while traveling along Entebbe Road. He suggested that such actions embarrassed the country and endangered important guests.
The President went further, accusing his longtime rival of deliberately trying to instigate riots that would lead to looting and destruction of small traders’ property. He described how vendors along the roadside had covered their fruits out of fear whenever Besigye announced a walk, believing unrest would follow. He even alleged that during some of the chaos, women had been stripped in the streets.
On the accusation that the repeated arrests were turning Besigye into a martyr, Museveni dismissed the idea. He argued that no one could become a hero by engaging in unlawful or destructive behavior and warned that such actions could instead turn someone into a villain.
Museveni made it clear that if Besigye continued defying the law, he would eventually face its full force. He explained that although courts had been granting bail, the government was considering strengthening the law to prevent what he described as repeated abuse of the bail system. He added that if bail conditions were violated, courts had the authority to cancel them.
When reminded that the two men were once close allies during the bush war days — one a general and the other a colonel — and asked whether they could resolve their differences privately, Museveni downplayed the possibility of any personal settlement. He maintained that there was nothing personal to settle and insisted that any discussions would have to be about formal political or legal matters, not street protests.
He characterized Besigye and his allies as unwilling to participate in structured dialogue forums, arguing that they preferred confrontation over constructive engagement. According to Museveni, the government had a clear mandate from voters and would implement its program regardless of opposition resistance.
The conversation also shifted to Uganda’s newly discovered oil in Lake Albert. Museveni emphasized that the oil belonged to Uganda and would be refined locally. He rejected suggestions that oil wealth had made him arrogant, stating that Uganda was already financing a large portion of its own budget even before oil revenues began flowing.
He insisted that oil would not be a curse for Uganda, as had happened in some other African countries. He expressed confidence that Uganda had capable institutions and leadership to manage the resource legally, politically, and, if necessary, militarily.
Museveni outlined ambitious plans for electricity expansion, infrastructure development, railways, education, and industrial growth. He compared Uganda’s aspirations to countries that had transformed from poverty to prosperity within a generation. He argued that electricity was the backbone of development and that Africa’s slow progress was partly due to neglect of power generation.
On leadership, Museveni said it was not for him to judge himself but pointed out that millions of Ugandans had voted for him. He stated that what mattered most was the will of the Ugandan people, not international criticism.
When pressed about his long stay in power, already 25 years at the time, Museveni rejected the idea of stepping aside simply because of time served. He argued that abandoning a mission before achieving its major goals would amount to desertion. However, he indicated that he would not be in office for another 30 years, suggesting that within a decade it would become clear whether his long-term objectives were achievable.
As the interview closed, Museveni maintained that while opposition actions might cause temporary disruption, they would not derail his government’s plans. He repeated his confidence that the law would ultimately prevail and that Uganda was on a path toward modernization and regional influence.
That night at State House, the message was unmistakable. Museveni signaled that he would not yield to street pressure, that his government would respond firmly to what it considered disorder, and that Uganda’s transformation agenda would continue with or without the approval of his fiercest critic.
Years later, the interview remains a striking snapshot of a leader fresh from swearing-in, facing mounting pressure, and drawing a firm line against his most persistent challenger. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
