KAMPALA, Uganda — Lumumba Amin, the son of former Ugandan President Field Marshal Idi Amin Dada, has urged the public to stop drawing parallels between recent actions by Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba and the rule of his late father, arguing that contemporary political controversies should be assessed on their own legal and constitutional merits.
His remarks come amid mounting political tensions following the reported arrest of former Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago and growing criticism from opposition leaders who have likened recent security operations to some of the most controversial practices associated with Uganda’s past military governments.
The debate intensified after soldiers believed to be attached to the Special Forces Command (SFC) reportedly raided Lukwago’s residence earlier this week, scaled the perimeter wall and took him into custody.
Gen Muhoozi later appeared to acknowledge responsibility for the operation through social media posts, describing it as retaliation for Lukwago’s long-standing criticism of him and his attempt to serve court summons on the army chief.
The incident has triggered widespread comparisons to the “panda gari” operations of the 1970s, during which security agencies under Idi Amin’s administration conducted sweeping arrests and detentions that became synonymous with state repression.
However, Lumumba Amin said such comparisons risk obscuring the facts of the current situation.
“A lot of people have been making comments and, all of a sudden, mentioning my late father, President Idi Amin, in something that he is not even responsible for,” Lumumba said.
“He is not even here. I am a bit perturbed by this sort of association of his name with other people’s actions.”
Rather than relying on historical analogies, Lumumba argued that the public should focus on whether the actions of state agencies comply with Uganda’s laws and constitutional safeguards.
“If you want to know what the Amin position is on such an incident, the first thing is: What was he arrested for?” he asked. “What exactly is the crime? Under the laws of Uganda, what offence did he commit? What is the evidence? Those are the facts that should be made public.”
According to Lumumba, transparency regarding the legal basis for arrests is essential to maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system and ensuring that law enforcement actions are not perceived as arbitrary.
“Even if he is later released for one reason or another, there must be clarity about exactly why he was arrested. It should be clear that he was not arrested arbitrarily or as an abuse of power,” he said.
Constitutional safeguards under scrutiny
The controversy has once again placed Uganda’s constitutional protections regarding arrest and detention under the spotlight.
Article 23 of Uganda’s Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty and prohibits arbitrary arrest or detention. The provision requires that individuals be informed immediately of the reasons for their arrest in a language they understand and be brought before a competent court within 48 hours.
Article 28 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, while Article 20 obliges all state institutions and public officials to respect, uphold and promote the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.
The Criminal Procedure Code Act similarly requires arrests to be based on lawful authority, reasonable suspicion and identifiable criminal offences.
Lumumba insisted that these legal standards should remain central to any discussion surrounding Lukwago’s arrest.
“You cannot arrest anybody without having clear legal reasons to do so. It must relate to an offence recognised under the laws of Uganda, together with the evidence supporting that allegation,” he said.
“I ask the public to be patient and wait for the details. We need to know precisely what offence the former Lord Mayor is alleged to have committed, and then we can discuss the matter from an informed position.”
He extended the same appeal to Uganda’s international partners, many of whom have expressed concern over reports involving opposition politicians and alleged human rights violations.
“Even the country’s foreign partners are concerned about these issues. Why they are concerned is another debate, but I ask everyone to wait for the facts,” he said.
Opposition draws historical parallels
Lumumba’s intervention comes as opposition figures increasingly frame recent events as evidence of a growing authoritarian trend within the state.
Former Kira Municipality MP and People’s Front for Freedom (PFF) spokesperson Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda said he was relieved that Lukwago had reportedly been transferred to Luzira Prison, arguing that recognised civilian detention facilities offer stronger legal protections than alleged military detention centres.
Ssemujju recalled the detention of the late Hajji Aziz Kasujja during Idi Amin’s administration, claiming military officers at the time reportedly advised Kasujja that prison was safer than military custody.
“Today, we find ourselves relieved that Lukwago is in Luzira rather than allegedly being held under military custody,” he said.
National Unity Platform (NUP) president Robert Kyagulanyi, popularly known as Bobi Wine, drew even stronger comparisons between the current administration and Uganda’s military past.
Also Read: Why Gen Muhoozi cannot remove Joel Ssenyonyi as Leader of Opposition
“You can abduct and torture him, but you cannot break his resolve,” Kyagulanyi said in reference to Lukwago.
He argued that the tactics allegedly being used against opposition figures resembled those associated with the notorious State Research Bureau during Idi Amin’s rule.
Kyagulanyi further claimed that alleged detention facilities in Mbuya and the former State Research Bureau headquarters in Nakasero reflected different eras of the same struggle over state power and political control.
Human rights concerns mount
The Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) has also weighed in on the broader debate surrounding arrests and detention procedures.
Pauline Nansamba Mutumba, the Commission’s Director for Complaints, Investigations and Legal Services, said constitutional protections exist to safeguard both individual liberties and public trust in state institutions.
“Every institution involved in law enforcement has a duty to ensure that constitutional rights are respected throughout the arrest and detention process,” she said.
“Transparency and accountability remain fundamental principles in protecting human rights.”
The reported arrest of Lukwago has since become the latest flashpoint in Uganda’s increasingly polarised political environment, fuelling renewed debate over constitutional governance, military involvement in civilian affairs and accountability within the security sector.
Opposition leaders have petitioned Parliament to reconvene during recess to discuss allegations of arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, military involvement in civilian law enforcement and compliance with court orders.
Leader of the Opposition (LoP) Joel Ssenyonyi has argued that Parliament has a constitutional obligation to exercise oversight whenever credible allegations of human rights violations emerge.
As the controversy continues to unfold, Lumumba Amin’s remarks highlight a competing narrative: that while Uganda’s history offers important lessons, current actions should ultimately be judged through the lens of law, evidence and constitutional accountability rather than historical association alone.
