In a recent statement, the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU) launched an attack on Hon. Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu, the leader of the National Unity Platform (NUP). Labeling him as divisive and accusing him of “politics of blackmail” and “idle talk,” the PLU’s statements appear to be more of a diversion than a genuine political response. The timing and tone of these accusations suggest an attempt to shift public focus away from corruption allegations and internal failures plaguing the PLU.
The PLU’s statement does not acknowledge the multiple corruption scandals involving its own members, some of whom have been implicated in embezzlement of funds intended for essential public projects. In 2023, for instance, a senior PLU official faced investigation over missing funds meant for healthcare initiatives, leaving critical needs unmet. Such incidents, widely reported and deeply troubling, have damaged the PLU’s credibility, making its accusations against Kyagulanyi appear as a tactical deflection.
Rather than engaging with these issues, the PLU seems to prefer attacking Kyagulanyi’s character. But ordinary Ugandans are acutely aware of the corruption scandals surrounding PLU officials, and no amount of blame-shifting will erase these facts.
The PLU’s statements paint Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba as a patriotic servant of the people, touting his service in Uganda’s military and involvement in regional conflicts as evidence of his commitment. While Gen. Kainerugaba has indeed held prominent defense positions, his contributions are contested by many Ugandans, who argue that these engagements have not resulted in tangible improvements to their lives. Uganda’s costly interventions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Somalia, for instance, have drained national resources, taking priority over pressing domestic needs such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure.
Moreover, the PLU’s choice to focus on Kyagulanyi’s alleged “disrespect for senior citizens” diverts attention from economic and social issues affecting ordinary citizens. Uganda is grappling with high youth unemployment, rising inflation, and dissatisfaction with public services. Yet, the PLU offers no concrete solutions in its statement, only broad praise for its leaders. Meanwhile, the NUP, under Kyagulanyi, has consistently called for reforms addressing these challenges, focusing on economic empowerment, job creation, and improvements in healthcare and education.
The PLU’s tactic of accusing Kyagulanyi of being divisive is a common strategy seen in other parts of Africa, where governments under fire use accusations of “insulting senior officials” or “stirring division” to silence dissenting voices. In Kenya and Zimbabwe, for example, similar accusations have been used to divert public scrutiny from allegations of corruption within the ruling party. This strategy shifts the conversation from transparency and reform to one of loyalty, making it less about accountability and more about personal loyalty to those in power.
This approach, while effective in stirring partisan tensions, has the potential to erode trust in public institutions. Ugandans deserve leaders focused on progress and accountability, not those who use deflection tactics to avoid difficult conversations about their own failures.
The people of Uganda are more concerned with their quality of life than partisan bickering. They are demanding real, measurable improvements to their everyday lives, not finger-pointing or personal attacks. Kyagulanyi’s calls for accountability and reform resonate with citizens who want to see changes in their public services, economic opportunities, and governance.
The PLU’s attempts to smear Kyagulanyi and sidestep its own shortcomings do not address the actual needs of Ugandans. If the PLU truly wishes to serve the people, it should prioritize tackling corruption, fostering transparency, and addressing Uganda’s pressing economic challenges. Until then, the public will likely see statements like these as a political tactic to divert attention from internal problems rather than an earnest commitment to the nation’s future.