By Asuman Kiyingi
[During his televised address at the ongoing NRM Caucus retreat at Kyankwanzi, President Museveni said many things including calling on MPs of the 12th Parliament to be cautious and work towards avoiding antagonism between the executive and the legislature which will be their place of work for the next five years (2026-2031). But his former Minister Asuman Kiyingi has controversially differed in his latest missive. Kiyingi asserts that, contrary to what the President said, tensions between the executive and legislature is a good thing because that, globally, is how the systems are kept under check and made to work].
Below is the VERBATTIM reproduction of Asuman Kiyingi’s thoughts:
A moment of humility in Parliament offers a timely lesson on leadership, accountability and the danger of personalizing the state. On December 12, 2007, Uganda witnessed a rare act of leadership. The best-performing Member of Parliament refused the title. That Member was Prof. Ogenga-Latigo.
As the NRM caucus meets in Kyankwanzi this week, the question is not only what is discussed, but what is learned. Beyond ideology and strategy, there is a deeper need to reflect on the values that sustain a republic—humility, integrity and respect for institutions. These are not taught in manuals; they are learned from example. Prof. Latigo offered one such example.
I served in the 8th and 9th Parliaments representing Bugabula County South. In the 8th Parliament, Prof. Latigo represented Agago County and served as Leader of Opposition. I have not encountered a more balanced, clear-headed, and intellectually grounded Leader of Opposition. You could defeat him with numbers, but rarely with logic.
On that December morning, New Vision published a performance ranking for members of parliament placing him at the top. In today’s politics, such a headline would be amplified and weaponized. But when he rose to speak, he dismantled it.
“I am a scientist,” he said, “and I know something about statistics.”
He argued that the ranking was methodologically flawed, given the unique role of the Leader of Opposition. Then he made a statement that should define public leadership: any credit attributed to him belonged to the Opposition collectively and to Parliament as an institution.
That was the Latigo Standard.
It stands in sharp contrast to a political culture that increasingly thrives on the opposite instinct—the monopolization of credit and the outsourcing of failure. In this emerging logic, success has a single visionary, one author, while failure is anonymous, external, or conveniently delegated to “incompetent ministers”, “corrupt civil servants” and the “useless opposition.” The effect of this is not merely rhetorical; it is institutional.
When credit is centralized and monopolized, institutions shrink.
Citizens begin to relate to the state not as a system of rules and responsibilities, but as a source of personal benevolence. Public programmes are no longer seen as obligations of the Republic, but as gifts from someone above. In such an environment, accountability weakens, and institutions recede.
The consequences are visible in Parliament itself. Members struggle to claim credit for development programmes and infrastructure raised during their tenure and are increasingly drawn into roles that are not legislative—funding funerals, paying school fees, meeting emergency welfare needs. This is not generosity but a symptom. It reflects a deeper erosion of institutional trust, where citizens no longer expect the system to function without personal intervention.
Alongside this is a growing suspicion of political opposition. Where dissent is framed as sabotage, and oversight is treated as hostility. Yet a functioning republic depends on this tension. The opposition is not an inconvenience to be destroyed; it is a constitutional necessity.
Prof. Latigo understood this balance. He led without inflating himself. He strengthened institutions without diminishing others. By refusing an undeserved accolade, he protected not just his integrity, but the credibility of the office he held.
That is what makes his example enduring—and relevant to Kyankwanzi today.
As leaders gather there, the question is whether the Latigo Standard has any place in the political culture being shaped. Is leadership presented as collective responsibility, or as personal entitlement? Are institutions strengthened, or quietly subordinated?
A republic—res publica—is a public matter. It cannot survive on the strength of individuals alone. It depends on leaders who understand that credit must be shared, responsibility must be owned, and institutions must function and outlive those who occupy them.
The Latigo Standard reminds us of a simple truth: leadership is not about claiming distinction, but about being measured and exercising restraint.
Until that standard is reclaimed, we risk entrenching a politics where institutions weaken, responsibility is diffused, and public service is mistaken for personal prominence.
Uganda does not lack leaders. What it needs are more Profs. who can say, when praised beyond measure: this is not mine alone. The writer is a Senior Advocate and former Minister. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
