By Asuman Kiyingi

Uganda today faces a question that can no longer be avoided: Who is actually in charge of the state?

To the outside world, we project coherence—a reliable trade partner, a pillar of regional security, and a predictable diplomatic actor. Yet, domestic reality tells a different story: a state speaking in competing voices, perpetually correcting itself after the fact, and struggling to maintain a single, authoritative line.

The widely reported “Turkey pigs” remarks by Muhoozi Kainerugaba are merely the latest episode in a pattern that has become impossible to ignore. They follow earlier, provocative statements directed at Kenya—remarks that necessitated a formal diplomatic apology from President Yoweri Museveni. They also mirror commentary suggesting Ugandan involvement in conflicts far beyond our borders, at times misaligned with established official positions on Middle Eastern tensions.

Taken together, these are not isolated incidents. They point to a deeper structural failure: the emergence of parallel, uncoordinated centers of authority.

When the State Speaks in Two Voices

A functioning state is defined by the clarity of its command. Foreign policy must be conducted through established civilian channels; military authority must remain firmly within a structured chain of command, subordinate to civilian authority; public communication must reflect settled policy, not personal impulse. When those lines are blurred, institutional coherence collapses.

We have now slipped into a recurring cycle of provocation, clarification, and apology. This has effectively created a dual-track diplomacy: an official posture on one hand, and an unsynchronized, militarized narrative on the other.

This can not be strategic signalling. It is an institutional contradiction. Such conduct raises serious questions under the Constitution, the UPDF Act, and the Leadership Code Act—all of which require public officers to uphold discipline and the dignity of their offices. A state that tolerates parallel messaging in high-stakes diplomacy risks eroding the very sovereignty it claims to defend.

The Sovereignty Bill: A Mirror of the Same Disorder

If the diplomatic sphere reveals the problem, the legislative process confirms it. The handling of the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, serves as a classic case study in governance by improvisation.

A bill with glaring defects, criticized for its extreme overbreadth and constitutional risk moved through Cabinet, the NRM caucus, and formal parliamentary processes with virtually no substantive scrutiny. It was defended as sound law by the Attorney General and the NRM’s Director of Legal Affairs.

Then, only after public backlash, came a decisive intervention. President Museveni issued a formal communication indicating that the draft did not reflect Cabinet’s intent. He subsequently met with joint parliamentary committees, agreeing to significant exemptions—including for institutions regulated by the central bank, religious organizations, and foreign direct investment.

Earlier, the Governor Bank of Uganda Michael Atingi-Ego, who had appeared before Parliament, warned of the dire economic consequences of the bill regarding financial flows and investor confidence.

The resulting exemptions indicated in a hurried amended bill are revealing. They remove precisely those sectors where the bill’s impact would have been most catastrophic. But exemptions do not cure overreach; they expose it. A law that must carve out its most critical sectors to remain functional is not a finely calibrated instrument—it is fundamentally flawed legislation.

Furthermore, instead of the bill’s withdrawal, these changes are being fast-tracked without renewed, meaningful public participation. This is more of legislative damage control than constitutional lawmaking.

The Cost of Governing by Afterthought

What is emerging is a pattern of “action first, correction later”—the hallmarks of an “apology state.” Statements are made, then walked back. Laws are drafted, then hastily revised. Positions are taken, then adjusted as the political winds shift.

The cost of this drift is tangible and immediate. In the arena of international relations, this behaviour is catastrophically expensive. It breeds a perception that official state channels—the Foreign Ministry, the diplomatic corps, and official press releases—are merely “diplomatic niceties” devoid of substance. Conversely, the erratic, bellicose social media posts of General Muhoozi may increasingly be viewed by foreign capitals as the “real” voice of the Ugandan state.

This dangerous duality projects Uganda as a duplicitous and dishonest actor. When the world stops believing that a country’s official word holds weight, it loses the currency of trust, which is the bedrock of foreign investment, aid, and security partnerships. Domestically, it leaves citizens—and even the bureaucracy—in a state of perpetual confusion, unsure of which directives represent the correct policy position and law of the land.

Conclusion: One State, One Authority

If this drift is to be arrested, we must restore institutional clarity. Foreign policy must speak through a single, accountable channel. Legislative processes must be disciplined at their inception, rather than repaired at their conclusion.

Ultimately, we must confront a fundamental paradox: A state cannot credibly claim to be legislating for sovereignty “against” the external world when it lacks the internal discipline to exercise sovereignty over its own military officers and actors, regardless of their rank or influence.

True sovereignty is not merely a defensive posture against outsiders; it is the capacity to ensure that all domestic power centers remain strictly subordinate to the rule of law. When individual impulse replaces the law and institutional process, the rule of law is effectively suspended.

Uganda cannot function indefinitely as a state of parallel voices.

The question of who is in charge is no longer merely rhetorical; it is a matter of national stability. Sovereignty is not a concept to be decreed in legislation; it is a reality to be demonstrated through coherent, disciplined institutions that speak with one voice. 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).