By Aggrey Baba
Gen Salim Saleh’s reported efforts to address the political differences between President YK Museveni and his former friend Dr Kizza Besigye have opened a debate about whether a dispute involving the political future of the country can be resolved through private negotiations between two men who once fought on the same side.
While some politicians have welcomed the prospect of dialogue, others insist that any settlement must go beyond restoring relations between the President and his former ally to address the national questions that have sustained their confrontation.
The distinction is significant because Besigye’s political grievances have for years extended beyond his personal relationship with Museveni to include concerns about governance, the rule of law, economic management and the country’s political transition.
Senior constitutional lawyer Peter Walubiri, according to today’s Weekend Vision, has argued that the dispute cannot be resolved meaningfully if it is treated as a personal disagreement between Museveni and Besigye.
According to Walubiri, the concerns associated with Besigye’s political struggle are national issues that require the participation of the wider political establishment rather than a private understanding between individuals.
He cautioned that a settlement based solely on persuading Besigye to abandon his opposition would risk leaving the underlying disagreements unresolved.
Walubiri questioned how issues affecting the country’s political direction could be settled by negotiating with one individual, warning that a personal arrangement could amount to an attempt to secure Besigye’s political acquiescence without addressing the substance of his concerns.
His argument places a fundamental question before Saleh and anyone else involved in the reported initiative: would the objective be to reconcile two former comrades, or to create a political understanding capable of addressing the issues that have kept them apart?
The debate comes at a very sensitive moment for Besigye, who is facing treason-related charges alongside his longtime aide Haji Obeid Lutale and UPDF officer Capt Denis Oola.
Besigye’s trial has attracted criticism from opposition figures and other commentators who question public confidence in the institutions handling the case.
Consultant on democratic governance Dan Wandera Ogalo has argued that when sections of the public lose confidence in the ability of state institutions to deliver justice, alternative avenues for resolving a dispute become increasingly important.
He described the situation as a deadlock arising from concerns about whether the institutions involved in Besigye’s trial can deliver justice in a manner that commands public confidence.
Former Democratic Party spokesperson Kenneth Kakande has similarly argued that reconciliation could provide the government with a political way out of a controversy that has damaged its image, characterizing the initiative as a strategic opportunity for the government and other parties to emerge from the dispute without one side being publicly humiliated.
The opposition to the reported reconciliation initiative has also been firmly expressed by the People’s Front for Freedom (PFF), whose acting spokesperson, Mr Harold Kaija, disputed the reported talks between Besigye and Saleh during an exclusive interview with Mulengera News on Monday this week.
Kaija dismissed the reports as New Vision propaganda, accusing the state-owned publication of pushing its own agenda through coverage suggesting that efforts were underway to negotiate a settlement between Besigye and the government.
He maintained that, from the PFF’s perspective, there was nothing to negotiate because Besigye was innocent but was instead being persecuted politically. He therefore rejected the suggestion that the opposition veteran needed to reach a private understanding with the same government he accuses of targeting him.
Kaija further argued that the State was now pressed between a rock and a hard place following the recent cross-examination of its key witness, Orlando Wilson, by lawyers representing Besigye’s co-accused, Haji Obeid Lutale.
According to the PFF spokesperson, the developments in court had left the prosecution facing serious difficulties, prompting what he portrayed as attempts to find an escape from a case he believes the State has little chance of winning.
His remarks introduce a sharply contrasting interpretation of the reported reconciliation efforts. Whereas some commentators view Saleh’s intervention as a possible route out of a prolonged political standoff, Kaija believes the reports should be understood against the backdrop of the prosecution’s difficulties and what he considers to be the political persecution of Besigye.
However, such an approach also raises concerns about whether reconciliation could be used to manage the political consequences of the prosecution without resolving the substantive questions surrounding it.
Kira Municipality MP and National Unity Platform lawyer George Musisi, the Weekend Vision has reported, that he has cautioned against using criminal proceedings to bring a political opponent to the negotiating table.
Musisi said Saleh and his team were entitled to engage political actors in dialogue, but warned that the process should not be driven by the use of the criminal justice system to compel an opponent like Besigye to negotiate.
His position highlights the difficulty of separating genuine reconciliation from negotiations conducted in circumstances where one party faces criminal charges.
The question is not simply whether Museveni and Besigye can agree to speak to each other, but whether both sides can participate in a process that is credible and capable of addressing the concerns behind their dispute.
Political historian Prof Mwambutsya Ndebesa has also emphasized the importance of establishing principles that can sustain a political settlement beyond the immediate interests of the people negotiating it.
Ndebesa commended efforts to resolve political disagreements through dialogue, arguing that differences arising from competing political perspectives should not automatically be treated as criminal matters.
However, he warned that personal relationships and negotiating skills would not, on their own, guarantee a durable outcome.
For a settlement to endure, he argued, it must be grounded in principles such as justice, equality and pluralism, with the terms formally documented to prevent the same disagreements from resurfacing.
Ndebesa further suggested that a political settlement should be lodged in Parliament, creating a formal reference point for future engagement and implementation.
That proposal would shift the focus from a potentially private understanding between Museveni and Besigye towards an arrangement whose terms could be documented and subjected to broader institutional scrutiny.
Associate Professor Sultan Juma Kakuba of Kyambogo University has made a related argument, saying the success of the first brother’s initiative should not be measured merely by whether it brings Museveni and Besigye closer together.
Instead, he said, its significance would depend on whether it helps establish a political environment in which disagreements can be managed through lawful, inclusive and credible processes.
Kakuba acknowledged Gen Saleh’s experience in previous reconciliation initiatives but stressed that personal diplomacy must be accompanied by institutional accountability and the genuine consent of the parties involved.
The concerns raised by these people expose the limits of treating the Museveni-Besigye fallout as a disagreement between former comrades who simply need to restore their relationship.
Their history provides a personal dimension to the dispute, but the issues surrounding Besigye’s political activities and prosecution have implications extending beyond the two individuals.
Any settlement that leaves those wider questions untouched could therefore produce an accommodation between the protagonists without necessarily restoring public confidence in the institutions at the centre of the controversy.
Saleh’s reported involvement may create an opportunity for dialogue, but the durability of any outcome will depend on what the parties are prepared to discuss, the terms on which they negotiate and whether the resulting commitments address the underlying grievances.
The ultimate test, for Uganda, may not be whether Museveni and Besigye can put their personal differences aside, but whether the political system can accommodate their disagreements without making reconciliation dependent on private intervention. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
