KAMPALA, Uganda — When President Yoweri Museveni met the leadership of MTN Uganda at State House in Entebbe, the official statement was characteristically diplomatic.
The President said the discussions centred on the telecommunications sector and its role in “driving socio-economic transformation, innovation and service delivery,” commending the company’s contribution to Uganda’s development.
On its face, that is entirely plausible. Telecommunications firms are among the most influential private-sector actors in modern African economies.
In Uganda, MTN controls a significant share of the mobile voice, data and mobile money market. Its infrastructure underpins digital payments, government e-services, education platforms and business operations.
A meeting between the Head of State and such a company is not unusual.
Yet scepticism from sections of the public was immediate.
Some critics argued the meeting may have concerned digital surveillance, censorship or the monitoring of political opponents, particularly supporters of the National Unity Platform (NUP).
The reaction reflects not merely suspicion, but a broader trust deficit between state institutions, telecom operators and citizens.
The real issue, therefore, is not conspiracy. It is transparency.
Why telecoms matter politically
Telecommunications companies in Uganda, as in many countries, operate within a legal framework that permits lawful interception of communications under certain conditions.
The Regulation of Interception of Communications Act (2010) allows security agencies to monitor communications for national security purposes, subject to procedural requirements.
In addition, Uganda has previously imposed internet shutdowns during election periods, most notably during the 2021 general elections.
Social media platforms were blocked, and access to certain digital services was restricted. These actions were widely reported and drew criticism from human rights organisations and international observers.
Against that backdrop, any high-level meeting between government and telecom executives inevitably attracts scrutiny.
However, suspicion alone does not equal evidence.
There is no public proof that the State House meeting involved directives to suppress dissent or target opposition activists.
Nor has MTN Uganda indicated any deviation from regulatory compliance or user privacy standards beyond what is required by Ugandan law.
Still, the concern many Ugandans express is rooted in lived experience, particularly during politically sensitive periods when digital freedoms have previously been curtailed.
The economic argument is real
It would be simplistic to dismiss the official explanation entirely.
Telecommunications are central to Uganda’s economic transformation agenda.
Mobile money transactions account for trillions of shillings annually. Digital tax collection, fintech growth, cross-border trade, and youth entrepreneurship increasingly depend on stable telecom infrastructure.
Uganda is also pursuing digital ID integration, e-government expansion and financial inclusion targets. MTN Uganda, as a dominant operator, plays a critical role in these ambitions.
From an economic standpoint, engagement between State House and telecom leadership is rational and expected.
The telecommunications sector contributes significantly to GDP, employment and innovation. Governments routinely consult major infrastructure providers to align investment, regulatory policy and national development goals.
The trust deficit
The public reaction says more about Uganda’s political climate than about the meeting itself.
Where civic space is perceived to be narrowing, even routine engagements invite suspicion. Where internet shutdowns have previously occurred, digital policy discussions are rarely viewed as neutral.
Where opposition activism has faced heavy scrutiny, citizens naturally question the intersection between state power and communications networks.
This is not conspiracy thinking. It is a consequence of political history.
The solution is not to dismiss sceptics. It is to increase transparency.
Clear public communication about the scope of such meetings, the regulatory boundaries governing telecom surveillance, and corporate commitments to user privacy would help reduce speculation.
In an era where digital infrastructure is inseparable from political expression, opacity fuels mistrust.
Corporate responsibility
Telecommunications companies operate at the crossroads of commerce, governance and civil liberties.
Globally, firms such as MTN are expected to adhere to human rights frameworks, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. These frameworks emphasise corporate responsibility to respect freedom of expression and protect user data within the bounds of domestic law.
Balancing compliance with national regulations and safeguarding user trust is a delicate but essential task.
If telecom providers are seen as extensions of state surveillance rather than neutral service providers, public confidence erodes, and with it, long-term commercial sustainability.
Also Read: Starlink and Uganda’s 2026 election battle: Who controls the internet controls the vote
There is currently no evidence that the meeting between President Museveni and MTN Uganda was about suppressing criticism or targeting activists. The official explanation, economic development and digital transformation, is credible.
However, in politically sensitive environments, perception matters almost as much as reality.
The path forward lies in transparency, regulatory clarity and consistent respect for digital rights. When citizens trust both their government and their service providers, conspiracy theories lose oxygen.
Until then, scepticism will remain part of the conversation, not because people are inherently conspiratorial, but because digital power and political power now intersect in ways that demand accountability.
