People's Front for Freedom—Uganda

In an intense courtroom exchange, Frederick Mpanga, a defense lawyer for Dr. Kizza Besigye, cross-examines Chief State Attorney Joseph Kyomuhendo during a treason trial.

​The core of the argument revolves around a fundamental legal tension:

the state's desire to protect the identities of its witnesses versus the defendant's right to a fair and transparent trial.

​Key Points of Contention

There are ​several sharp moments where the defense challenges the legal basis for the state's request:

​Expert vs. Witness of Fact:

Mpanga presses Kyomuhendo on whether he is testifying as an expert in witness protection or as a witness of fact regarding specific threats.

Kyomuhendo claims to be both, which Mpanga uses to highlight inconsistencies in the legal justification for the application.

​The Missing Legal Framework:

A major part of the "schooling" involves Mpanga pushing the prosecutor to cite the specific law or constitutional article that grants the state the right to conceal witness identities.

​Mpanga points out that while Article 28 of the Constitution guarantees a right to a fair trial, it doesn't explicitly provide for witness protection through anonymity in the way the state is requesting.

​Kyomuhendo argues that the right to a fair trial includes the protection of witnesses, but he struggles to point to a specific statutory provision or subsidiary legislation that supports his position.

​The Burden of Evidence:

Mpanga emphasizes that the application for protection must be supported by the facts contained in the filed affidavits. He suggests that if the affidavit is lacking in evidence of a real threat, the application itself is legally unsupported.

​Contextual Significance
​In Ugandan law, "witness protection" has often been a contentious area because there isn't a dedicated, comprehensive Witness Protection Act.

The state frequently relies on the court's inherent powers or broad interpretations of the Constitution, which defense lawyers often challenge as a violation of the "right to cross-examine" and the "right to a public trial."

​This specific exchange serves as a masterclass in how defense counsel can use a prosecutor’s own testimony to expose gaps in the legal grounds for state applications.

​
Free Kizza Besigye

Ugandan opposition leader Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu, popularly known as Bobi Wine, has dedicated his 2026 Hero of Democracy award to detained opposition figure Kizza Besigye, other political prisoners, and fallen activists, in a message of resilience and hope.

The coming of Dr. Kizza Besigye back in the day. Reformed Agenda shall always remain in our hearts.

ATTENTION: People’s Front for Freedom – Rukungiri.

Yesterday, our own Kisakyakatonda Liberty—former PFF flag bearer for Directly Elected Councillor, Bwambara Sub-county; Coordinator for Bwambara Sub-county (PFF); and Coordinator for Elect Fred Turyamuhweza—was reportedly abducted by people in an unmarked black double-cabin vehicle between Bikurungu Station Stage and Kikogi Town.

His whereabouts remain unknown.

We kindly ask everyone to keep him in your prayers and stand with us during this difficult time.

Caleb Musiimenta
Administrative Secretary – PFF Rukungiri

Questions no one is asking in Uganda-US health deal.

By Rukirabashaija Kakwenza.

On December 10, 2025, our country signed a five-year bilateral health cooperation agreement with the United States in Kampala. The deal is reported to be worth about $1.7 billion from the US side and it is paired with increased domestic co-financing by Uganda over the 2026–2030 period.

The recent deviation among some fellow African countries over these bilateral health agreements with the US deserves some serious legal attention. South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe and others declined to proceed. The Kenyan courts suspended government implementation pending review.

But our leaders signed with indescribable rapidity, as has sometimes happened before. Remember when former Finance minister Syda Bbumba confessed to having signed important oil agreements without reading through? We must ask whether the NRM government can lawfully commit our biological future without explicit constitutional mandate.

I should submit that this is not just a matter of sentiment or diplomatic preference, but it raises important structural questions about sovereignty, constitutional oversight, and long-term policy autonomy.

The issue is not whether this kind of health cooperation is desirable but whether the architecture of these agreements preserves sufficient national control over regulatory frameworks and strategic data.

Some reports that I have read in preparation for this piece indicate that the compacts may include provisions on regulatory alignment, long-term health data cooperation, pathogen sharing, and broader strategic collaboration. Those elements move the agreement beyond short-term service delivery into the realm of structural policy commitment.

If regulatory alignment is embedded, what does that mean in practice? Does it require us to harmonise drug approval standards, digital health systems, reporting mechanisms, or surveillance architecture in ways that narrow future legislative discretion?

Regulatory convergence sounds technical until one realises it can indeed shape who sets standards for pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, and also the emerging technologies.

I believe that the majority of Ugandans do not know that our health data is a strategic asset because it includes demographic, biometric, genomic, and epidemiological information that can shape big pharmaceutical development, research pipelines, and artificial intelligence modelling.

Long-term data access arrangements should therefore be examined with the same seriousness as natural resource concessions or infrastructure agreements.
We cannot, therefore, debate other contracts with fury and then rush to sign data contracts with applause and indescribable rapidity.

There is also the unresolved matter of biological samples and this takes us to the question of pathogen isolates or genomic material shared for research collaboration.
What governs ownership of downstream discoveries?

The last I checked, we are a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol principles on access and benefit-sharing.

Do the clauses of this agreement explicitly preserve those rights or do they bypass multilateral benefit-sharing frameworks in favour of bilateral discretion?

I would like the Attorney General to respond to these questions in detail, so that Ugandans can understand.
When our leaders commit our country to these sustained data-sharing frameworks, two questions arise.

First, the duration. How long do the obligations endure? Do they extend beyond electoral cycles? Are they subject to mandatory periodic review by Parliament, and can future governments recalibrate without incurring penalties?
Second, the exit. What are the practical conditions for withdrawal or renegotiation?

International law, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, recognises that states may terminate agreements under certain conditions such as material breach or fundamental change of circumstances.

But the decisive issue is always the wording of the agreement itself. If exit mechanisms are restrictive, politically costly, or financially punitive, formal sovereignty may exist while functional flexibility narrows.

There is a third question rarely asked, about dispute resolution.

If disagreements arise over data usage, intellectual property, or compliance, where are disputes settled?
Domestic courts, international arbitration, or diplomatic consultation?

The forum determines the balance of power because arbitration clauses can quietly relocate sovereignty from Kampala to neutral venues in a different jurisdiction.

Mr Kakwenza is a novelist, playwright and lawyer.

From Rebel Leader to President: Remembering Yoweri Museveni.

Gone are the days
when we Ugandans could speak freely, when criticizing the President was simply part of public life.

Gone are the days when disagreement was not treated as hostility, when a citizen’s voice was not mistaken for rebellion.

Gone are the days when newspapers carried bold opinions, when radio talk shows echoed with fearless debate, when universities were places where ideas challenged power.

Gone are the days.

Gone are the days when we questioned those in power
without being called enemies of the state.

Today many feel that criticizing the President
is spoken of like treason.
Gone are the days.

Even speaking about his son
can bring whispers of danger— threats, intimidation, the shadow of legal trouble.

Gone are the days.

The space for honest debate—something every society needs to breathe—feels smaller now.

Gone are the days.

There was a time when dissent meant strength, not weakness, when a confident government could hear criticism and still stand tall.

Criticism was not rebellion.
It was accountability. It was the voice of the people
reaching those who led them.

Gone are the days.

When that space disappears,
fear replaces dialogue, silence replaces participation.

Gone are the days.
Many of us remember another image—a young rebel leader
speaking of freedom, speaking of democracy,
speaking of a new political culture for Uganda. That was the vision.

Gone are the days.

Ugandans remember those early promises, a time when leaders could be questioned
and citizens could speak without fear.

Gone are the days.

Some of us say this
not because we hate our country, not because we hate our leaders, but because we remember what was promised, what once felt possible.

Even saying this
can feel risky—as if a simple reflection could be mistaken for something dangerous.

Gone are the days.

I miss the old days—when political disagreement was not feared, when criticism was not criminalized, when leadership meant listening
as much as it meant leading.

Gone are the days.

And yet many of us
still remember them.

A, B, C, D, E, and F will testify; however, G, who was supposed to be a witness, has already been intimidated by the accused persons in jail. So that state needs to protect A, B, C,D, E and F identity.

THE NARRATIVE THAT RUINS THE OPPOSITION SOLIDARITY.

That they have nothing tell us!!!
That they are all the same!!
Really?

For seven years now there has been a running narrative that those who began the struggle against Museveni's dictatorship actually did nothing and have nothing to demonstrate, advise or even to tell the young generation.

Some of the loudest mouths have even obscenely characterised our time-tested struggle pillars as friends (Ba Chali) of the NRM junta or pretenders in Ugandans' self- liberation struggle against the oppressive regime.

For seven years they have dominated the social media with divisive propaganda that has ruined the "solidarity of the oppressed", which has given the oppressor an entrenchment opportunity.

These new junta facilitators have nurtured a crop of disrespectful, misguided, unideological youths whose abusive and derogatory attacks on other opposition cadres, especially on social media and in their field operations have served to do nothing but to weaken the gains previously collected by the opposition solidarity under the Unity in Diversity concept, and have instead exacerbated the stranglehold of the junta on our country.
The junta now wears a new face of a useful old broom despite all the evil it is causing our country.

I reject the junta facilitators' narrative with the analysis of the phases of our struggle, to enable our new but misguided opposition actors to understand that the race we are running is a marathon, not a hundred meter dash; and that everyone's contribution counts, and so every contribution must be counted.

1. The first phase of the junta resistance began in the Constituent Assembly while they wrote the Constitution that was inaugurated in1995.
At that time our Patriots exposed the true intentions of President Museveni and the NRM/A bush war fellows as a group of "African zionists" whose interest was to monopolize power and to establish a dynasty that would stay for eternity, while masquerading as liberators.
Their potential to do the evil they are doing now was unmasked at that time.
The first Clarion call was made and a new liberation front that recruited us was formed under the INTER POLITICAL FORCES COOPERATION (IPFC) led by Dr Paul Kawanga Ssemwogerere in the 1996 general elections.
The IPFC united all political Parties that had been frozen in 1986 by the NRA/M, which included the DP, UPC, and CP, and the Monarchists, while the UPM, which was the de facto National Resistance Movement(NRM), was baptized as a "political system" called the MOVEMENT in the 1995 constitution.


2. After the 1996 rigged general elections, there were other forms of resistance some were armed, such as UFDF under Evaristo Nyanzi, yet the LRA under Joseph Kony, the ADF among others, were real wars , and serious resistances to the NRM than what these junta facilitators would like Ugandans to believe.

3. Between 1996-2005, there was a phase of Politico-Legal activism, whereby our Freedom Fighters, who had a strong resolve, with minimum resources, mobilised defunct Party Structures country-wide and they identified and trained grassroots leaders especially under the Foundation for African Development (FAD).
The branches that were established at that time are the building blocks of the cadre structures on which the New Youthful Opposition is thriving and yet, which they don't respect at all.

Apart from that, the legal activism led by Dr Ssemwogerere, Zachary Olum, Pro Ogenga Latigo, Senior Counsel Joseph Balikuddembe, Erias Lukwago and others helped to redeem the activities of the old Parties and secured the freedom of association including the formation of new political Parties.
What the new Opposition actors are enjoying today was paid for by those they call accomplices of the junta.

4. Over the years, there has been political and intellectual activism including mass mobilisation and civic education led by the UYD, Civil Society organisations, registered Parties, Makerere University and other tertiary institutions, Radio broadcasters and Television operations also helped the actors to educate masses about the cause for freedom, human rights and good governance.

Our Opposition journey included the demand from the NRM government, the Andrew Kayiira Murder report between 2006 and 2007, a demand that put many of us in harm's way, and also the struggle to stop government from giving away Mabira forest for Sugarcane growing.

We shall never forget the ACTION FOR CHANGE (A4C) and WALK TO WORK activism that was led largely by General Kizza Besigye and Mathias Mpuuga to protest against the escalating fuel, food and other commonly used commodity prices in 2011.

5. The use of the Electoral calender to MOBILISE and to test the Electoral fortunes. The Opposition share of the electorate being between 23% and 36% in all rigged elections, from Dr Ssemwogerere, through Dr Kizza Besigye, Ssebaana Kizito, Nobert Mao, and then Now our friend Kyagulanyi, to wit:
Dr Paul Kawanga Ssemwogerere with 1.42 Million votes in 1996,
Dr Kizza Besigye with 2.06 Million in 2001,
Dr Kizza Besigye with 2.59 Million in 2006,
Dr Besigye with 3.51 Million in 2016. And then,
Kyagulanyi Ssentamu with 3.63 Million in 2021 and,
Kyagulanyi Ssentamu with 2.74 Million in 2026.

Only Museveni's numbers purportedly grow while they change percentage shares here and there.

6. The Parliamentary engagements have also over time caused positive changes. A case in point is the debates and fights on lifting the term limit and then the age limit, debated on Public order management bill, political Parties and organizations act, among others.

7. Cases of political engagements where the state and obwakabaka bwa Buganda fought for space

The events and phases I have highlighted is a mere snapshot of the many milestones that legit and resilient Freedom Fighters have built in the politics of this country without fleeing the country or playing hide and seek.
For the sacrifices they have made to make our country they deserve better acknowledgement by the young Turks.

In conclusion, Ugandans have suffered a lot under the 40 years of a selfish group of people that captured the state, all the public institutions and the private civic spaces.
The group carries guns and money to intimidate and to suppress any form of demand for freedom, human rights, better governmenance in our country.

Unfortunately we, the captured have over the years ruined the chances of uniting to take back our country by preferring individualism to colleageality.

We can now speak with certainty that no single political Party has the capacity to go it alone, in an NRM organized election, to expect a win and to be declared as such, no matter whether the flag bearer is a soldier or a popular popstar singer.

We must learn to value one another's contribution and not to act too desperate, in the face of a need for a protracted spirited struggle because a better Uganda deserves our concerted and collective effort.

Dr Bayigga Michael Lulume(MP)

The Supreme

The Archbishop was called by President Museveni and urged to cancel prayers for Kizza Besigye.

The church unexpectedly postponed the prayer service for Dr. Kizza Besigye and all political prisoners, leaving invited guests uncertain about what to do.

Despite the announcement, some people still went to Rubaga Cathedral and are currently seated inside, waiting for further instructions.