Bobi Wine's allegations against President Museveni

______________

OPINION

By Carolyne Muyama

Opposition leader Bobi Wine recently spoke to the European Parliament about Uganda’s 2026 general elections. The National Unity Platform leader accused the National Resistance Movement government and President Yoweri Museveni of electoral fraud, intimidation, and the compromise of democratic freedoms.

His goal was to have Members of the European Parliament take a firm stand against Uganda. However, a close examination of the proceedings reveals that the European Parliament was not fully persuaded by his claims. Instead, members asked tough questions and avoided rushing to judgment.

In his presentation, Bobi Wine described the elections as deeply flawed. He talked about voter suppression, arrests of his supporters, heavy security presence, and what he called a lack of transparency in vote counting. He claimed that the elections were neither free nor fair.

He also urged the European Union to put greater pressure on Uganda, including the possibility of sanctions and stronger diplomatic measures. He portrayed himself and his supporters as victims of a system that he claimed was designed to favour the incumbent.

Although his speech was emotional and passionate, much of it depended on personal stories and broad claims. He described the election as exposing long-standing governance problems during President Museveni’s administration.

When it was time for questions, the atmosphere in the room changed. Several Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) did not just accept his statements; instead, they demanded proof, which caught Bobi Wine off guard.

Some asked whether there was independent evidence to support claims of widespread rigging. Others inquired if formal election petitions had been filed in Ugandan courts and what the outcomes were. They pressed him on whether all available domestic legal options had been fully exhausted.

Several lawmakers also expressed worries about regional stability. Uganda plays a key role in peacekeeping and security in East Africa. They inquired about any alternative plan Bobi Wine had for governing the country and how he would maintain peace if political change took place.

These questions were not hostile. They were careful and straightforward. They demonstrated that the European Parliament sought facts and legal clarity, not just bold statements.

In response, Bobi Wine stated that Uganda’s institutions, including the judiciary, were compromised. He argued that obtaining justice through the courts was difficult.

However, when asked for specific evidence, official reports, or clear data, his responses stayed vague. He went back to broad themes of repression and democratic decline. Although these are serious issues, some lawmakers seemed to expect more concrete proof. This should prove to Bobi Wine that his sweeping statements aren’t convincing to critical thinkers looking for substance in a candidate.

When asked about his long-term plan for governing Uganda, he mainly emphasised restoring democracy and human rights. These are vital values. However, in his typical style, he did not offer a detailed policy plan for the economy, national security, or foreign relations, issues important to international partners.

Uganda is an independent nation with a Constitution and defined legal procedures for resolving election disputes. Candidates dissatisfied with the election results have the right to file petitions in court. The judiciary has the authority to review evidence, summon witnesses, and issue binding rulings. These procedures are established by law.

In international relations, sovereignty is crucial. While foreign partners can voice concerns, it is not their responsibility to manage Uganda’s political affairs. Electoral grievances should be addressed through Uganda’s legal and constitutional systems.

By taking internal political disputes to a foreign parliament, Bobi Wine’s intentions and his understanding of international jurisdiction are also in question. At the end of the session, there was no strong resolution condemning Uganda. No immediate action was announced against the government. This silence was telling.

Uganda’s politics are often heated and divided. Some say the elections were conducted in accordance with the Constitution and point to multi-party participation and the absence of widespread post-election violence as signs of stability.

The opposition disagrees and believes the playing field is not level. These disagreements are part of political competition in any country. But resolving them must follow proper channels. Courts, electoral bodies, and constitutional processes exist for that purpose.

In the end, the session made it clear that foreign platforms cannot replace domestic legal processes. Uganda’s challenges, like those of any sovereign nation, are best handled at home through dialogue, the courts, and constitutional order.

The writer works with the Uganda Media Centre