About ministers who campaigned against NRM

_____________

OPINION

The 2026 elections have highlighted a growing contradiction within Uganda’s multiparty politics: government ministers who, after losing party primaries, chose to run as independents.

In doing so, they did not merely defy the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM); they effectively voted themselves out of the very political party they serve as members of the executive.

A minister serves at the pleasure of the President, and politically, he/she does the job on behalf of a party. In the case of the NRM, ministerial appointments are inseparable from party loyalty and collective responsibility. When a minister fails to win the party flag and appears on the ballot as an independent, that act speaks volumes. It is a public declaration of no confidence in the party’s internal processes and leadership.

Although there is no law prohibiting such a decision, it is politically and morally questionable. A minister who runs as an independent and, at worst, loses should take personal responsibility, pack up, and resign.

By running as independents after losing the NRM primaries, these ministers made two clear statements. First, they signalled that they did not accept the party’s verdict. Second, they invited voters to choose between them and the official party flagbearer. In constituencies where both the NRM candidate and an independent with strong party ties appeared on the ballot, it created confusion and divided support, presenting an “NRM vs NRM” contest that undermined party cohesion.

President Yoweri Museveni was explicit during the campaign. He cautioned aspirants against dividing the party, warning that running as independents where official party candidates existed would create unnecessary fractures. His position was clear: unity behind the flagbearer was essential to prevent vote splitting and protect the party’s strength.

In his meeting with independents in Arua, they sought to justify their decisions to contest parliamentary seats. In response, President Museveni said, “Where there are NRM and opposition candidates, I wouldn’t advise coming as an independent because if you do and things go wrong, you are the one to blame.”

“Where there are only NRMs in the race, even there I prefer you use the law, so that you don’t confuse our people.”

He went on to warn, “So this is where you need to be very careful. You should ask yourself, should I be involved in the division of NRM? For me, I wouldn’t do that.”

“If there are three of you, two NRMs and one opposition, it would be a big problem on your side. Now, where you say there are only NRMs, there I can’t sit here as Chairman of NRM and say, you go and fight it out. There, I have to keep quiet and watch, but when I come, I will hand the flag to the NRM flagbearer.”

Some heeded that call. Musa Ecweru, after losing the NRM primaries in Amuria County, initially vowed to contest as an independent and was even nominated. He later withdrew from the race following what he termed “consultations and reflection.” That decision preserved party cohesion.

Others pressed on, including David Bahati in Ndorwa West, Joyce Kaducu in Moyo District Woman, Frederick Ngobi Gume in Bulamogi North West, and Florence Nambozo Wamala in Sironko District Woman.

In choosing the independent path, they placed personal political survival above the party, seemingly determined to prove they were popular enough to win without the party flag. They lost.

Once defeated, first in the primaries and then in the general election, such ministers find themselves in an untenable moral and political position. They rejected the party’s internal democratic process, failed to secure a popular mandate as independents, and lost the confidence of both the party base and the broader electorate. Remaining in office after that sequence does not sit well within the party.

It strains working relations, as those who defied the party are inevitably viewed as rebels against the NRM. In a functioning multiparty system, political accountability demands consistency.

If one campaigns outside the party framework and loses, the logical step is to relinquish executive office.

To stay on, as some ministers are doing, is to appear as a political squatter occupying space where one is no longer politically grounded.

They may continue serving as MPs until the end of their tenure, but having gone against both the party and the President, it is awkward for them to hold on to the ministerial positions. The appointing authority is not to kick them out since he is to announce new ministers in May.

The rise of independents points to an intensifying contest between party flagbearers and independents. The 12th parliament will have 63 independents, second only to the NRM’s 369 seats. The leading opposition National Unity Platform (NUP) comes third with 51 MPs and also contributed to the pool of independents. Both NRM and NUP are expected to court independents through memorandums of understanding.

Uganda’s multiparty system, restored in 2006 after two decades of the movement system, was intended to strengthen organised political competition. Instead, internal party disputes and flawed primaries continue to drive aspirants to run as independents. However, for ministers entrusted with implementing government policy, openly rebelling against party processes magnifies a problem.

It blurs the line between party governance and personal ambition and revives elements of the old movement-era individual merit politics, when loyalty to political parties was absent because parties were restricted.

Multiparty democracy depends on credible internal democracy, respect for outcomes and ideological cohesion. When ministers abandon the party flag yet retain executive office, they undermine that foundation.

By contesting as independents, the ministers cast a political vote against the NRM’s internal authority and its official candidates. By losing, they forfeited the electorate’s endorsement as well.

It was within their constitutional right to stand as independents, but a clear statement that they disagreed with the ruling party. And having done so and been defeated, they can no longer convincingly hold executive office. Had they won, it might have validated their claims of malpractice, though even that victory would still have been an act against party cohesion.

X -@dmukholi dmukholi@gmail.com