By Asuman Kiyingi
Tuesday this week, the newly appointed Secretary General of the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU), Hajji Fadhil, was formally ushered into office at the organisation’s headquarters in Naguru. The Speaker of Parliament was the chief guest. The Deputy Speaker attended. Several Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament were also present.
Congratulations to the new Secretary General.
PLU has consistently presented itself as a patriotic movement dedicated to fighting corruption, promoting accountability, and ushering Uganda into a new era of national renewal. Those are noble aspirations. Every Ugandan who believes in good governance should welcome any sincere effort to confront corruption.
Yet the events at Naguru expose a contradiction that can no longer be ignored.
Anti-corruption begins with respect for the Constitution.
Corruption is not merely the theft of public money. At its deepest level, it is the abuse or private appropriation of public power. A country cannot credibly wage war against corruption while simultaneously normalising arrangements that blur constitutional boundaries, weaken public institutions, and transfer authority from constitutionally accountable bodies to informal centres of influence.
A recent article by PLU ideologue Michael Katungi presents the organisation as a vehicle for governance, economic development, social justice and national transformation. In effect, PLU increasingly presents itself not merely as a civic association but as a platform for shaping Uganda’s future.
Yet there is little discussion of constitutionalism, parliamentary independence, military neutrality or the rule of law. That omission matters because development and accountability do not exist in a constitutional vacuum. Before discussing what policies an organisation seeks to pursue, one must first ask a more fundamental question: what legal and constitutional authority does it possess to pursue them?
At this point, it is necessary to dispense with legal fictions.
PLU is not attracting the Speaker of Parliament, Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament because of a policy paper. Everybody understands why PLU matters. It is widely perceived as the political vehicle of Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the son of President Museveni, the serving Commander of the Defence Forces, and the man many believe is being positioned for Uganda’s next political chapter.
The issue therefore is not whether PLU possesses influence. It clearly does.
The issue is what constitutional authority legitimises that influence.
That concern is magnified by the fact that Gen. Muhoozi remains the serving Commander of the Defence Forces. Article 208 of the Constitution requires the UPDF to remain non-partisan and subordinate to civilian authority. Democracy cannot flourish when the line between military authority and partisan politics becomes blurred.
Yet Uganda increasingly finds itself confronted by a political phenomenon occupying an ambiguous constitutional space. PLU speaks like a political movement, mobilises like a political organisation, advances governance programmes, convenes senior political leaders and increasingly presents itself as a vehicle for Uganda’s future leadership.
The Naguru event illustrated that reality.
The Speaker of Parliament and the Deputy Speaker were not merely attending a ceremony. Both have accepted appointments to PLU’s Central Executive Committee and publicly expressed gratitude to Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba for appointing them.
That symbolism matters.
The Speaker and Deputy Speaker derive their authority from the Constitution and from election by Parliament. They are not appointed by PLU and do not exercise constitutional authority on its behalf. The question therefore arises: if their legitimacy comes from Parliament, why should they require another source of political validation?
Supporters of PLU may point out that previous Speakers, including Rebecca Kadaga, Jacob Oulanyah and Anita Among, served on the Central Executive Committee of the National Resistance Movement. That observation is not entirely without merit.
However, PLU presents an additional constitutional concern. The NRM is a registered political party operating within the framework established by the Constitution and the Political Parties and Organisations Act. Whatever one thinks of its politics, its legal status is clear.
PLU’s status is not.
If it is a civic organisation, why does it maintain executive structures, political mobilisation networks, governance programmes and a national political agenda? If it is a political organisation seeking to shape Uganda’s future leadership and governance, why does it not submit itself to the legal framework governing political parties?
This ambiguity lies at the heart of the constitutional concern.
Equally troubling are recurring public suggestions, acknowledged by PLU itself, that the movement has sponsored, endorsed or influenced the occupancy of important constitutional offices. Such assertions strike at the heart of parliamentary sovereignty.
The Speaker derives authority from Parliament, not from PLU. Constitutional offices are created by law, not bestowed by political patrons. Any perception that office holders owe their position to an external organisation risks diminishing public confidence in the independence of state institutions.
The most revealing aspect of the Naguru event was the complete absence of institutional discomfort. Senior state officials gathered comfortably under the banner of an organisation whose significance derives largely from the political stature of a serving military commander.
That is the constitutional crisis confronting Uganda today: not the formal abolition of constitutional institutions, but their gradual subordination to informal centres of power operating beyond clear constitutional accountability.
The solution is neither complicated nor unreasonable. If PLU is a civic organisation, let it operate as one. If it is a political movement seeking to shape Uganda’s future, let it submit itself to the legal framework governing political parties. If its leaders aspire to political office, let them do so as civilians rather than military commanders.
The Speaker and Deputy Speaker should likewise reconsider their positions within PLU’s executive structures. The dignity and independence of Parliament require visible separation from external political organisations, particularly those associated with serving military officers.
A movement that presents itself as a force for governance, accountability and national leadership cannot escape scrutiny regarding its own constitutional status, especially when it is associated with a serving military commander and attracts the allegiance of senior constitutional office holders.
For ultimately the question is not whether PLU has power. Everyone can see that it does. The question is whether that power will be exercised within the Constitution or above it.
What is the constitutional status of a movement that speaks like a government, mobilises like a political party, commands the loyalty of senior state officials, derives its influence from a serving military commander, and increasingly presents itself as the vehicle of Uganda’s political future?
Until that question is answered, PLU’s promises of accountability and anti-corruption will remain overshadowed by a more fundamental concern:
Accountability to whom? Power derived from where? And exercised under what constitutional authority? 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).
