Unchallenged power: Why Uganda’s sports leaders run unopposed

A growing narrative within Uganda’s sporting circles suggests that contesting for the presidency of the Republic of Uganda may, paradoxically, be easier than vying for an executive seat in some national sports federations.

Critics argue this perception stems from “ring-fenced” constitutional provisions crafted by federation leaderships over the years, effectively narrowing the democratic space within sports administration.

Electoral Frameworks: Politics vs. Sport

Unlike Uganda’s national electoral system, governed by the Constitution of Uganda (1995, as amended) and the Electoral Commission Act, where aspirants such as John Katumba “Oyee” and Robert Kasibante were able to satisfy nomination requirements set by the Electoral Commission chaired by Justice Simon Byabakama, sports federations operate under their own constitutions.

These constitutions often impose additional nomination thresholds, membership eligibility restrictions, and strict compliance timelines.

Under the National Sports Act, 2023 (Cap 151), federations must register as corporate entities and adopt constitutions aligned with principles of good governance.

The Act requires clear procedures for elections, eligibility criteria, tenure provisions, and accountability structures. Yet, it also grants federations autonomy to regulate internal affairs, a provision critics say has been exploited to entrench incumbents.

The Uganda Boxing Federation (UBF) Case

On February 10, 2026, UBF Electoral Committee chairman Paul Mukasa confirmed incumbent president Moses Muhangi and his executive as unopposed for a third term. Muhangi, who has led the federation since 2018, faces accusations that the 2022 amended UBF constitution contains clauses designed to stifle competition.

To contest for a UBF executive seat, aspirants must:

Hold a National Technical Official (NTO) or International Technical Official (ITO) certificate.

Secure five signatures from delegates representing at least five districts.

Possess at least an Advanced Level (A-Level) certificate or equivalent.

Have served in the outgoing UBF executive for a minimum of four years, or as a senior club official for at least five consecutive years.

Muhangi dismisses claims these requirements are restrictive. “If you are a serious candidate, how can you fail to be backed by five districts out of over 140?” he asked, adding that opponents had ample opportunity to acquire technical certifications through international boxing bodies.

A wider pattern across Federations

Boxing is not alone. At the Federation of Uganda Football Associations (FUFA), constitutional amendments in 2012 introduced eligibility requirements that critics say entrenched Eng. Moses Magogo, president since 2013.

Aspirants must demonstrate seven years of football administrative experience within the last decade, secure endorsements from regional chairpersons, special interest groups, and top-tier clubs, complete FUFA’s Football Administration and Management Course (FAMACO), and pay a non-refundable fee of ten million shillings.

Similar patterns exist elsewhere:

Athletics Uganda: Dominic Otuchet is serving his fourth term, often unopposed.

Cycling: Sam Mahaba Muwonge has led the Uganda Cycling Association for nearly three decades.

Weightlifting: Salim Musoke has maintained long-term control.

Uganda Olympic Committee (UOC): Eligibility requirements, including advanced academic qualifications and prior executive service blocked Moses Muhangi’s 2021 presidential bid, paving the way for Dr. Donald Rukare to assume leadership unopposed.

USA-based boxing promoter Stephen Sembuya, who attempted to challenge Muhangi in 2022, argues: “Almost every Ugandan sports federation head has manipulated their systems to lock out opponents. They have created ‘kingdoms’ of their own.”

Governance or Gatekeeping?

Supporters of these constitutional safeguards contend they ensure experienced leadership in an increasingly complex and commercialised sports environment. Critics, however, argue that while legal, such provisions discourage broader participation and limit leadership renewal.

As Ugandan sport continues to professionalise under the National Sports Act, the central question remains: Are federation constitutions strengthening governance—or narrowing democracy within sports administration?