pressug.com News 24 7
Related Articles
By Alexander Luyima
From opposition stalwart to Justice Minister, Norbert Mao’s journey reflects a deeper crisis. As he labels Robert Kyagulanyi “toxic,” we must ask: Is he fighting for Uganda’s future, or helping to cement a political inheritance for the First Son?
KAMPALA – In Ugandan politics, the most dangerous lies are not the blatant falsehoods, but the seductive half-truths. The defection of Norbert Mao, the long-time Democratic Party leader, to President Yoweri Museveni’s government as Minister of Justice was presented to the nation as a victory for “dialogue.” For a growing number of Ugandans, however, it stands as the ultimate betrayal: a veteran of the democratic struggle absorbed into the architecture of the very system he once vowed to dismantle.
His recent characterization of the National Unity Platform (NUP) and its leader, Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu, as “toxic” is not mere political commentary. It is the logical endpoint of this alignment a sophisticated attempt to pathologize legitimate dissent while sanitizing the systemic oppression of a regime that has held power for nearly four decades.
From Principle to Pragmatism: The Anatomy of a Betrayal
Mao’s political evolution mirrors the slow erosion of Uganda’s formal opposition. For decades, he stood as a vocal critic of Museveni’s National Resistance Movement (NRM), often exposing its democratic deficits and authoritarian tendencies. His defection to the government, under a “cooperation agreement,” was not simply a change in allegiance but a fundamental rupture of trust with the electorate that once believed in him.
Dr. Evelyn Nalwanga, a political historian at Makerere University, observes: “Mao’s move is a textbook case of co-optation, a tactic long used by the NRM. By drawing influential opponents into its fold, the regime achieves two goals: it creates a façade of inclusivity and weakens the opposition by absorbing its most credible leaders. The tragedy is that the moderate space collapses, not through electoral defeat, but through absorption.”
When asked to defend his decision, those close to the minister describe it as a pragmatic approach. “President Museveni is the fountain of national stability,” said one source. “Minister Mao believes that principled cooperation, not endless confrontation, is the only path to reform and development. He is building a bridge, not burning it.”
That argument, however, feels hollow to many. Mao now speaks of facilitating a “peaceful transfer of power,” but this lofty claim demands scrutiny. Transfer to whom? The open secret in Kampala’s political and military circles is the orchestrated rise of General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the President’s son, who has been engaging in political mobilization despite military regulations that forbid partisan activity.
“If the succession plan is indeed for Muhoozi, then this is not a democratic transition,” explains John Magambo, a senior analyst at the Africa Governance Institute. “It is the institutionalization of a political dynasty. What Mao is facilitating is not a transfer of power from the NRM, but a transfer of power within the NRM’s first family. This is continuity disguised as change, and it makes a mockery of the democratic struggle he once represented.”
The 2021 Mandate and Youth Frustration
The rise of the NUP in the 2021 general elections was a watershed moment that cannot be erased. Despite a campaign marked by state violence, internet shutdowns, and the mass arrest of activists including the siege of Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu’s home the NUP captured a significant portion of the popular vote and parliamentary seats. It was not merely an election result but a collective cry for genuine change from a youthful population demanding justice, opportunity, and accountability.
Mao’s dismissal of this movement as “toxic” ignores the real source of its defiance: the complete closure of legitimate political space. When peaceful assembly is met with bullets, when dissent is treated as treason, and when electoral processes are openly manipulated, confrontation becomes inevitable.
The problem is not the existence of a passionate opposition; it is the system’s refusal to allow any alternative to flourish.
This frustration is evident on Uganda’s streets. A 24-year-old university graduate in Kampala, who requested anonymity for safety reasons, told us, “They tell us to be peaceful, but they block every peaceful path. When Mao calls Kyagulanyi toxic, he is telling us that our anger is wrong. But we are hungry, jobless, and hopeless. That is not toxicity. That is our reality.”
The Real “Toxicity”: Normalizing Oppression
The irony in Mao’s narrative is his redefinition of “toxicity.” By branding Kyagulanyi’s resistance as poisonous, he diverts attention from the actual venom eating away at Uganda’s democracy: the slow normalization of compromise with oppression.
A political culture that jails opposition leaders, silences civil society, and removes constitutional term limits is the true toxin. When dialogue requires silence about state abuses, it ceases to be a tool for peace and becomes an instrument of control.
“The real poison is not defiance,” Dr. Nalwanga explains. “It is the quiet acceptance of a system that has destroyed democratic checks and balances. By accusing those who refuse to be silent of toxicity, Mao is prescribing a sedative to a patient who needs urgent surgery. Uganda’s crisis is one of legitimacy, and no amount of dialogue within an unjust system can fix that.”
Conclusion: A Crossroads for the Nation
Uganda stands at a crossroads. The path promoted by Minister Mao one of managed dialogue and elite consensus leads to the entrenchment of a de facto royal family and the continued exclusion of the people’s will from power.
The other path, represented by the energy and frustration of Uganda’s youth, is more uncertain but rooted in the pursuit of genuine democracy. The anger in Kampala, Gulu, and Mbale is not simply about one man; it is about a system that has failed to deliver fairness, opportunity, and justice.
Norbert Mao may have secured a seat at the table, but history will not judge him kindly if that table becomes the place where a crown is crafted for a new monarch. The ultimate betrayal is not criticizing one’s former allies; it is legitimizing a regime that has betrayed the democratic dreams of an entire generation.
A Call for Accountability:
This analysis has been shared with the offices of Minister Norbert Mao and the National Unity Platform for their direct response. Any statements received will be published in full.
Join the conversation: #TheMaoParadox
