Lumumba Amin Urges Ugandans to Stop Comparing Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba to Idi Amin

KAMPALA — Lumumba Amin, the son of former Ugandan president Field Marshal Idi Amin Dada, has appealed to the public to stop drawing comparisons between Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba and his late father following the controversial arrest of former Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago.

The debate intensified after soldiers believed to be attached to the Special Forces Command (SFC) reportedly raided Lukwago’s residence on Monday, scaled the perimeter wall and took him into custody. Gen Muhoozi later claimed responsibility for the operation through social media, describing it as retaliation for Lukwago’s persistent criticism and efforts to serve him with court summons.

The incident sparked widespread criticism from opposition leaders and civil society activists, some of whom likened the operation to the notorious “panda gari” security crackdowns that characterized Idi Amin’s rule during the 1970s.

However, Lumumba Amin rejected the comparisons, arguing that Gen Muhoozi’s actions should be assessed independently and within the framework of Uganda’s Constitution.

Lumumba Amin Rejects Historical Comparisons

Speaking on the growing public debate, Lumumba expressed concern over what he described as the unnecessary association of his father’s name with contemporary political events.

“A lot of people have been making comments and, all of a sudden, mentioning my late father, President Idi Amin, in something that he is not even responsible for,” Lumumba said.

“He is not even here. I am a bit perturbed by this sort of association of his name with other people’s actions.”

While Idi Amin’s legacy remains linked to allegations of political repression, abuse of power, enforced disappearances and shrinking civic freedoms, Lumumba insisted that current events should be judged on their own facts rather than through historical comparisons.

Focus on Constitutionality and Due Process

Lumumba argued that the key question should be whether the arrest of Lukwago complied with Uganda’s legal and constitutional requirements.

“If you want to know what the Amin position is on such an incident, the first thing is: What was he arrested for?” he asked.

“What exactly is the crime? Under the laws of Uganda, what offence did he commit? What is the evidence? Those are the facts that should be made public.”

According to Lumumba, public confidence in the justice system depends on transparency regarding arrests and prosecutions.

“Even if he is later released for one reason or another, there must be clarity about exactly why he was arrested. It should be clear that he was not arrested arbitrarily or as an abuse of power,” he said.

He further emphasized that every arrest must be based on identifiable offences recognized under Ugandan law.

“You cannot arrest anybody without having clear legal reasons to do so. It must relate to an offence recognised under the laws of Uganda, together with the evidence supporting that allegation,” he added.

Constitutional Safeguards Under Scrutiny

Lumumba’s remarks have reignited discussion about constitutional protections governing arrests and detention in Uganda.

Article 23 of the 1995 Constitution guarantees personal liberty and prohibits arbitrary arrest, requiring that arrested persons be informed of the reasons for their detention and produced before a competent court within 48 hours.

Article 28 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, while Article 20 obliges all state institutions and public officials to respect and uphold constitutional rights and freedoms.

The Criminal Procedure Code Act also requires arrests to be based on lawful authority, reasonable suspicion and recognized criminal offences.

Lumumba urged both Ugandans and international observers to await official details regarding the allegations against Lukwago before drawing conclusions.

“We need to know precisely what offence the former Lord Mayor is alleged to have committed, and then we can discuss the matter from an informed position,” he said.

Opposition Leaders Draw Parallels with Uganda’s Military Past

Lumumba’s appeal contrasts sharply with reactions from opposition leaders, who argue that the arrest reflects a troubling pattern of political repression.

Former Kira Municipality MP and People’s Front for Freedom (PFF) spokesperson Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda said Lukwago’s transfer to Luzira Prison offered greater legal safeguards than alleged military detention.

National Unity Platform (NUP) president Robert Kyagulanyi, popularly known as Bobi Wine, went further, accusing the government of employing tactics similar to those associated with Idi Amin’s feared State Research Bureau.

“You can abduct and torture him, but you cannot break his resolve,” Kyagulanyi said while criticizing what he described as increasing political repression.

Opposition leaders have since called on Parliament to reconvene during recess to investigate allegations of arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, military involvement in civilian law enforcement and non-compliance with court orders.

Human Rights Commission Calls for Accountability

Pauline Nansamba Mutumba, Director for Complaints, Investigations and Legal Services at the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC), emphasized the importance of respecting constitutional protections throughout the arrest and detention process.

“Every institution involved in law enforcement has a duty to ensure that constitutional rights are respected throughout the arrest and detention process,” she said.

“Transparency and accountability remain fundamental principles in protecting human rights.”

As political tensions continue to rise, the arrest of Erias Lukwago has become a focal point in Uganda’s broader debate over constitutional governance, human rights and security sector accountability.