Many people cannot differentiate between a strike or protest or demonstration or industrial action and rioting. The reason is that in both instances, a big number of people express their anguish over a certain grievance.

They lay down their tools of work, shut off services they offer and call attention to their plight openly.

Striking or demonstrating is a human right, is legitimate and nonviolent. Rioting, on the hand, is violent protest that leads to death, injury or destruction. Rioting is usually staged by actors with ulterior motives and usually, there is an unseen hand or a ringleader inciting the rioters.

The recent action by traders (members of the business community) in Kampala and environs was nonviolent unlike previous mass action witnessed in the city. The Mabira riots were definitely violent; the Nakasero market protests were violent, they were riots; the November 2020 acts by political pushers were riots, and they led to loss of life; other protests like those of A4C and others codenamed differently were riots.

Usually, riots result from incitement and the issuance of uncoordinated messaging intended to confuse the public. The agenda is often unclear or shrouded in politics so as to give it undue clout with the intention of undermining the Government.

In the absence of coordination and clear engagement with different stakeholders, troublesome elements come into place and take charge of the mass action, start causing destruction, directly confronting other citizens going about their business as well as security personnel carrying out their normal duties of ensuring law and order.

Any attempt to contain the situation is taken as highhandedness of the state, thus causing further incitement and clashing. There is a thin line between rioting and mass insurrection which can cause regime change and that’s usually what rioters are up to; not to address a particular grievance, but to capitalise on the discontent of a few to achieve other unrelated objectives.

The “anti”-Electronic Fiscal Receipting and Invoicing Solution (EFRIS) traders were clear on the cause of their displeasure and this they voiced through their respective associations including Kampala City Traders Association (KACITA), Uganda Cargo Consolidators, Kampala Rice Traders and Federation of Uganda Traders Associations (FUTA). They freely expressed concern that EFRIS poses several challenges, notably: that it imposes a high cost of compliance, most traders didn’t understand how the system works and that it applied to all traders irrespective of whether they are VAT registered or not.

Perfect! Problem identified, solution-finding begins! That’s how civilised society works, not jumping out of the blue and ransacking towns, burning tyres, breaking buildings and dragging passersby into one’s fight.

This has been a big problem in this country when people instead of raising what is disturbing them are quick to engage in public confrontation. If it’s about taxes, how does it help matters to attack people physically or destroy property? If it’s about a bad section of road, how does it help matters burning tyres on tarmac when that action alone will destroy the good section of road?

It’s high time that as citizens we embraced our full responsibility when expressing our frustrations and demanding for action from those in authority. Uganda is a democratic country where the voice of the downtrodden or aggrieved can be heard and responded to. We have Parliament, Local Councils, Cabinet, and a large media space. Any issue can be raised in a civil way and it’s attended to.

In fact, even a sit-down strike over EFRIS, though peaceful, was unnecessary. Why? When traders closed their shops, they lost business-merchandise in stock could go bad, landlords would still demand rent, customers couldn’t get served and the economy was slowed all along the broad value chain. The advantage from the strike was, as already noted, it was nonviolent and also created ground to discuss some of these issues.

Questions on EFRIS came at a time a number of measures were being instituted to raise tax revenues and so many mistook EFRIS for  a form of tax whereas it’s only a system used to track tax compliance and is designed to monitor the payment of value-added tax (VAT) and facilitate accurate record-keeping for business transactions.

Again, the strike also raised the need to always adequately sensitise the public on changes taking place. It shouldn’t be a matter of slapping “solutions” in place without educating them on what is involved, because, specifically in the line of taxation, there is no day tax will ever be sweet.

It’s always a bitter pill which should be packaged with sweeteners for better acceptability. Even now, URA should step up client engagement and provide information to partner agencies to explain to the public what this is all about, like RDCs who are in place to explain Government programs.

EFRIS is a modern system already in use in countries like Tanzania and Rwanda. I thank H.E the President for putting his experience, seniority, wisdom and heart for the people to use by giving the traders a listening ear, taking note of their issues, halting some of the measures that the taxman had imposed and promising to meet the larger body of traders soon to hear directly from them. That’s a people-centered and responsive government.

If the traders had sought the President’s ear before the strike, I know he would have listened to them with similar attention.

When I saw Dr. Besigye joining the fray and attempting to stop the traders from engaging with the President, I was concerned that the agenda of the traders would be lost but, thankfully, they were not diverted. These traders are great contributors to our economy and they aren’t divided along sectarian lines. They should be supported to do business in a supportive environment free of lawlessness and undue interference. That’s what the President is working on!

Faruk Kirunda is the Deputy Press Secretary to the President of Uganda

Contact: kirundaf2@gmail.com

0776980486/0783990861

Does the opposition in Uganda ever learn from history? Counting from 1996, through 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016, 2021 and now on to 2026. The supposedly long-awaited transition from President Yoweri Museveni has eluded its promoters and will continue to do so into the future going by what’s unraveling right before our eyes.

It’s a fact that 38 years for President Museveni in power is thanks to his ingenuity, tact, will power, performance, organisational capacity and divine anointing. On the other side of the political coin is the “shortness” of his opponents in the same categories. The opposition has told too many lies about their capacity and President Museveni’s standing with Ugandans. Time is catching up with them!

Current happenings inside the main opposition parties, namely; FDC and NUP are giving us an early glimpse into what to expect in the near future. If it’s not splitting into splinter groups, it will be implosion or both, and there is no way that assures the concerned parties of success in any endeavor. Even without looking at elections, operating a healthy, functional and cohesive political organisation is an achievement, which comes with benefits in terms of competitiveness in the field of play.

Presently, FDC is a shadow of its former self. First, Maj. Gen. Mugisha Muntu who had been its chief organizer and president at some point, defected to start his own party, ANT. He took with him some of FDC’s big wigs and members.

As he departed, he prophesied that time would, contrary to accusations leveled against him, expose the real moles in his mother party.

Then last year, time matured! After a hiatus in which he feigned lack of interest in public activity, including boycotting contesting in the 2021 elections, Besigye emerged at the head of a faction based at Katonga road (in Kampala) crying foul that the party he once headed and on whose ticket he contested for President four times, had been infiltrated and that the incumbent party President and 2021 presidential flagbearer, Patrick Amuriat Oboi and Secretary General, Nandala Mafabi, knew something about the development.

He exposed the behind-the-scenes of the party’s 2021 elections status which by no chance could have allowed the party to fare any better. The formerly most powerful opposition party was upstaged by the new NUP which currently has majority members in the House.

Amuriat himself came third while President Museveni won comfortably.

Besigye didn’t campaign for Amuriat, and when last year he came out on why he didn’t feature on the campaign trail, the excuse was that “dirty money” had come into the party and he didn’t want to associate with it.

Nevertheless, with or without whichever money, FDC slipped in its rankings and as we talk, it will only be a miracle if it doesn’t split into two-Besigye is consulting on how to form a new party. But the bad blood is literally boiling between his supporters and those of the Najjanankumbi faction. The other day they fought during the burial of activist Sarah Eperu in Ngora.

Daily, they are exchanging bitter words and accusations, all the while exposing their dirty linen which can only leave party members embarrassed and regretting their choice of belonging. Going into 2026, it means that what was left of FDC supporters in 2021 after the emergence of NUP and ANT will again be shared between Besigye and whoever remains of the official party will front.

On the other hand, NUP which displaced FDC is equally in turmoil, with the membership split between party president, Kyagulanyi Sentamu (Bobi Wine) and former LOP, Matthias Mpuuga. The latter is “accused” of benefiting from a service award and he has stood his ground and defended himself. A defector from DP, Mpuuga was already targeted by the radical wingers in NUP apparently for being moderate in his approach.

Without elders at hand to mediate some of these differences, NUP will struggle to survive an internal split. At a time when building structures and setting a clear policy agenda would help set its roots, the quarrels and fights will certainly do the opposite.

Why is money such a disorganising factor in these parties? It has to do with absence of a strong programme and ideology to unite members and to sell to Ugandans. Absence of ideas creates room for shallowness, gossip, intrigue, suspicion and faultfinding which recipe is disastrous for any organised group. If the trend continues, we know who will not make much of 2026.

President Museveni prophesied and warned us about the functionality of political parties in societies still on the mend. It’s a dangerous game which creates fertile ground for dividing our people. If members of the same parties are hard on each other as we see in NUP and FDC, how hard are they on those belonging to other parties? Why can’t we learn from the post-independence era and the errors of political groups which worked for narrow interests as opposed to national causes?

At various intervals, there have been attempts to build coalitions and unifying pressure groups. On each occasion, I have predicted that such coalitions cannot hold since there is nothing in common between the allying partners except fighting to remove President Museveni from power.

Every single time they try and fail the public loses trust in them and retreats to the President’s side. As we talk, the fights in opposition parties are benefitting NRM. I have personally received lines of defectors approaching me to take them to the President, some with sensitive and intriguing secrets indicating why they are running away from sinking ships.

2026 is coming too early for warring opposition parties. Time will reveal it!

Faruk Kirunda is the Deputy Press Secretary to the President of Uganda

Contact: kirundaf2@gmail.com

0776980486/0783990861

Absence of title is at the root of tenure insecurity and was responsible for the near grinding to a halt of the colonial economy when the bibanja holders refused to grow cash crops until the security of tenure on the land they occupied was guaranteed.

The colonial administration in a report to the secretary of state for colonies stated that the boycott by the bibanja holders had engineered rural unrest and discontent which undermined the production of export crops and diminished the colonial state’s revenue.

Succumbing to the boycott pressure, the colonial administration put in place the Busulu and Envujo Law enacted in 1928. The law assured bibanja holders security in the occupation of their plots and freed them from the fear of arbitrary eviction.

In a study published in 1953 Mukwaya showed that in over 400 land cases he examined, there was no case of illegal evictions. All the cases involved, inter alia, minor boundary disputes and succession related issues. He posited that: “it is rare for courts to grant orders of eviction against tenants who fail to pay busulu or envujo. Any dues in arrears are legally considered civil debts, which are recoverable in the usual manner”.

This security of tenure which continued into the 1960s and early 1970s created an enabling atmosphere leading to a production boom and eventually an economic boom which secured Uganda a placing among the World’s top 10 producers of quality coffee, cotton and other produce.  The Coffee Marketing Board, Lint Marketing Board and Produce Marketing Board were put in place to handle the marketing of the boom production.

Unfortunately the 1975 Land Reform Decree abolished the security of tenure of bibanja holders rendering them mere tenants at sufferance back to the pre-1928 tenure insecurity status.

This was the position of law when the 1995 constitution was enacted. Unfortunately the constitution only provided for security of occupancy in Article 237 (8) for bibanja holders and left the issue of titling to the Parliament which under Article 237 (9) was to do this within 2years of its first sitting.

Unfortunately the legislation to be enacted by Parliament within 2years after its first sitting as envisaged under Article 237 (9) was never actualized. The 1998 Land Act was not the legislation that the constitution envisaged.

The background to the envisaged law is Article 237 (1) which provides that land belongs to the citizens of Uganda and vests in them in accordance with the land tenure systems provided for in the constitution.

Article 237 (3) provides four tenure systems namely; customary, freehold, mailo, and leasehold. When Article 237 (4) and (5) is analyzed, they all end up as freehold.

Tenures freehold and mailo are already freehold. These tenures are the registrable interest in land. Under section 237 (9) (b) Parliament was to make law providing for the acquisition of registrable interest as title by bibanja holders. This registrable interest would be freehold title since all the four tenures in Article 237 (3) end up as freehold.

Failure to enact this law leaves bibanja holders without any land vesting into them as per Article 237 (1) of the constitution thus constitutionally discriminated against other Ugandans who are titled.

There was no reason for Parliament not to have enacted a law providing bibanja holders with titles. There was already a precedent for this when the 1967 constitution transferred public land from federal and District Boards as previously prescribed in the 1962 constitution to the Uganda Land Commission. In that case the 1969 Public Lands Act operationalizing the 1967 Constitutional granted customary occupants (bibanja) a right to a leasehold title over the land they occupied.

Consequently Parliament would have found guidance in the 1969 Public Lands Act and provided for the kibanja occupants to be granted a legal title to their plots. The kibanja holder would have his kibanja converted to a freehold title.

It cannot be over emphasized that the 1969 Public Land Act provided a good starting point where an occupancy holding was converted directly from customary tenure to leasehold title. Therefore the mandate of Parliament under Article 237 (9) to enact a law providing for the acquisition of registrable interest to the bibanja they occupied was clearly practical and not without precedent. Moreover Article 237 (5) and section 28 of the Land Act 1998 allows for the customary leases converted and granted to a citizen of Uganda out of public land to be turned into freehold.

Delay to enact a law giving bibanja holders titles is at the root of the systematic risk associated with tenure insecurity in the Uganda land market. Ugandans who are owners of untitled bibanja in the same location cannot sell for the same amount like their fellow Ugandans who are in the same location but titled. This creates a state of disequilibrium among Ugandans.

Failure to get rid of the untitled bibanja insecurity is a trap on the road to Uganda’s development. The answer is a single freehold titled tenure security for all Ugandans in perpetuity.

Dr. Sam Mayanja

Smayanja@kaa.co.ug

www.kaa.co.ug