news TRUSTED NEW
By Alexander Luyima
Uganda is once again confronting a question that many citizens have been asking quietly for years and now increasingly ask out loud:
Who is really in charge of the country, the Constitution or those who wield power?
The reported arrest and disappearance of senior lawyer and opposition figure Erias Lukwago has reignited concerns about the state of governance, the rule of law, and the future of democracy in Uganda. While authorities and political actors continue to battle over competing narratives, the deeper issue extends beyond one individual. It concerns the character of the Ugandan state itself.
For decades, Uganda has prided itself on being a relatively stable country in a region often marked by conflict and political uncertainty. The nation has attracted investors, hosted international conferences, and positioned itself as a strategic partner in regional security. Yet stability built on fear rather than trust is never permanent.
The troubling reality is that many Ugandans no longer debate whether political intimidation exists. The debate is now about how far it has spread and whether public institutions are still capable of acting independently when powerful individuals are involved.
A functioning democracy depends on predictable institutions. Citizens must believe that disputes are settled in courts, not through intimidation. Political disagreements must be resolved through legal processes, not through displays of force. When elected leaders, lawyers, journalists, activists, and opposition figures begin to fear for their safety because of their political views, confidence in the state begins to erode.
Political philosopher John Locke once observed that “wherever law ends, tyranny begins.” Although written centuries ago, those words remain relevant today. The rule of law is not measured by how governments treat supporters. It is measured by how they treat critics.
The Lukwago incident comes at a particularly sensitive moment for Uganda. The country faces significant economic pressures. Youth unemployment remains a challenge. Public debt continues to generate concern among economists. Healthcare systems remain under strain. Education outcomes continue to face scrutiny. Millions of young Ugandans are searching for opportunities at home while many others dream of opportunities abroad.
Against this backdrop, political instability becomes more than a political problem. It becomes an economic problem.
Investors do not merely look at growth statistics. They examine governance. They assess whether contracts will be respected, whether courts are independent, and whether institutions can function without political interference. Every image of political confrontation, every allegation of unlawful detention, and every public threat exchanged between powerful figures sends a message far beyond Uganda’s borders.
Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan once stated that “good governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development.” The lesson is simple: nations prosper when institutions are stronger than individuals.
Uganda’s international image is increasingly at stake. Human rights organizations, foreign governments, development partners, and international media are paying close attention to events unfolding in the country. Whether one agrees with opposition politics or not, there should be broad agreement that every citizen deserves due process, legal protection, and access to justice.
The issue is bigger than Erias Lukwago.
Tomorrow it could be another opposition leader. The next day it could be a journalist. The day after that it could be an activist, a lawyer, or an ordinary citizen whose views happen to differ from those in power.
History teaches that freedoms are rarely lost all at once. They are often lost gradually, one exception at a time, until exceptional measures become normal practice.
The question many Ugandans are asking today is not whether the country still has institutions. Uganda still has courts, a parliament, local governments, security agencies, and constitutional structures. The real question is whether those institutions are sufficiently independent to restrain power when power exceeds its limits.
That question remains unanswered.
What Uganda needs now is not more threats, more fear, or more political grandstanding. It needs transparency. It needs accountability. It needs institutions that inspire confidence among both supporters and critics of government.
Most importantly, it needs leaders who understand that power is temporary but institutions endure.
The future of Uganda will not be determined by who can intimidate opponents most effectively. It will be determined by whether the nation chooses to strengthen the rule of law or allow the rule of power to become the law.
That choice belongs not only to leaders but to every Ugandan who believes the country’s future should be governed by justice rather than fear.
Related
Source link
