UPDF’s warning is a call for peace, not intimidation

________________

OPINION

By Simeo Nsubuga

The Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) has taken a decisive and commendable step by warning against the use of divisive and incendiary language by politicians during the 2026 campaign season.

As the country gears up for a high-stakes general election on January 15, 2026, such a statement is not merely prudent, it is essential for the preservation of national cohesion and the avoidance of chaos that can unleash violence and instability. 

On December 4, 2025, Colonel Chris Magezi, the UPDF’s Acting Director of Defence Public Information, issued a stern statement. He condemned rhetoric calling on supporters to “mob polling centres” and “march on Kampala,” branding it “ill‑advised, toxic, shallow in logic and dangerous.”

His words were clear: the mobilisation of citizens to confront or overwhelm security forces is an invitation to conflict.

The UPDF’s reminder that it is “highly capable, organised, proficient and lethal” was not a threat of aggression towards peaceful dissent, but a necessary assurance that any attempt to disrupt the peace will be met with unwavering strength. 

Why is this intervention by the UPDF not only justified but commendable?

First and foremost, the spectre of divisive rhetoric is not hypothetical. Uganda has a history marked by political manipulation of ethnic or regional tensions, and repeated cycles of unrest and bloodshed could be triggered by another bout of inflammatory language.

The UPDF is right to draw parallels between contemporary political mobilisations and historical cult-like movements, recalling “modern-day Alice Lakwena’s” and other youth led astray by charismatic leaders.

Such parallels are not merely symbolic; they are warnings borne from bitter lessons. 

Second, the UPDF’s intervention affirms its constitutional mandate, the defence of national sovereignty and the protection of internal peace.

UPDF is not opposing political competition. Instead, it is standing firmly against tactics that threaten to erode democratic processes and public security. Democracies thrive on vibrant debate, not violent confrontation. 

Critics may caution against excessive military involvement in political affairs. Yet what the UPDF has done is not to pick sides, but to encourage responsible campaigning.

The statement urges political leaders to “seek votes peacefully, in accordance with Electoral Commission guidelines and within the confines of Ugandan law.” This is not overreach; it is a proactive effort to uphold constitutional order and prevent any slide into disorder. 

Moreover, the UPDF offers credibility. Its track record in operations against al-Shabaab in Somalia, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) and CODECO in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and even Joseph Kony’s defunct Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in the Central African Republic, underscores its capacity to counter threats and maintain stability. When this institution warns of the dangers of provocative rhetoric, Ugandans should listen—not dismiss it as partisan or undemocratic. 

Equally important is the UPDF’s concern for Uganda’s youth. Much of the incendiary rhetoric has come from those appealing to youthful anger and disenchantment, promising mobilisation and confrontation. The UPDF’s warning cuts through this noise, urging the youth to engage in politics through ballots, not barricades. It reminds us that genuine transformation arrives via peaceful civic participation, not chaotic uprising. 

Some will argue that this statement smacks of intimidation. To them I say: consider the alternative. Without such a warning, the electoral terrain risks becoming a battleground for unrestricted rhetoric. We have seen how calls to “mob polling stations” or “overwhelm security” can morph into real-world confrontations with dire consequences—loss of life, property, and public trust. The UPDF is simply preventing Uganda from repeating history. 

There is also a governance case to be made. In today’s information ecosystem, where social media can amplify half-truths and stoke anger, a voice of moderation is vital. The UPDF, in its neutrality, provides exactly that. It signals that the rules of engagement aren’t merely political decorum; they are legal imperatives tied to national sovereignty and personal liberty for every citizen. 

Far from undermining democracy, the UPDF’s caution reinforces it. By discouraging violent and divisive campaigns, the armed forces contribute to a more level and lawful playing field. When politicians know there are boundaries, not only moral, but also operational, they are encouraged to focus on policies, not provocation. And this ultimately benefits the electorate, which deserves a discourse centred on ideas and solutions, not slogans and threats. 

Of course, institutions like the UPDF must be vigilant not to overstep. Their role is preventative, not campaign-driven. They issue warnings about violence, not political preferences. Any overreach should be called out. However, what we see today is not overreach; it is responsibility. The UPDF is reminding all stakeholders, candidates, parties, supporters, and civil society that in this democratic moment, stability cannot be taken for granted. 

In short, Colonel Magezi’s statement is not just a military directive; it is a national appeal. It urges all Ugandans to resist the temptation of provocation and mass mobilisation. It demands that campaigns be fought with ideas, not intimidation. It warns that when words become weapons, peace becomes a fragile casualty. 

As Uganda approaches this critical election, let us support the UPDF’s call. Let us champion a campaign defined by policy, integrity, and respect. Let us reject the notion that crowd mobilisations or confrontations are a path to victory or justice. Instead, let us recommit to democracy the Uganda way; peaceful, participatory, and constitutional. 

The UPDF has reminded us what is at stake. Now, it is up to the political class, and each one of us, to respond with maturity, restraint, and genuine patriotism.