Mpuuga Writes DA’s Accurate Story, Outlines Detailed National Transition And Reform Agenda

Mathias Mpuuga, the National Coordinator of the Democratic Alliance (DA), officially outlined the civic platform’s objectives during its inaugural 2025 press conference at the DA office in Namirembe on January 3.

Joined by notable figures, including MPs Juliet Kakande (Masaka City,) and Micheal Kakembo Mbwatekamwa (Ntebbe Municipality) Mpuuga, the Nyendo-Mukungwe MP, Commissioner of Parliament, detailed DA’s national transition and reform proposals.

This development comes as Uganda prepares for the 2026 elections, with Mpuuga’s DA poised to play a significant role in shaping the country’s political future.

This article is part 1 of our series delving into the specifics of DA’s objectives as outlined by Mpuuga.

Over the last one month, public space has been awash with what the DA is about. Initially, there were inconclusive conversations as to what I had tabled in parliament as electoral and constitutional reforms. And, today, I have invited you to share a comprehensive version of these issues such that nobody misconstrues our intentions.

Initially, I want to state like I said at my last briefing of the nation that we had written to the majority of political actors/platforms, informing them of our intentions to interact. A few have not yet received these letters because offices were closed for the festive season, and beginning today, we have embarked on transmitting this communication, I hope, we will be able to interact with various political platforms-including civic or citizen platforms in the form of Civil society organizations to discuss the content of our intention at the DA.

The most important issue is what is the DA’s national transition and reform proposals about? I have seen media commentators, not necessarily misrepresenting, but probably misconstruing what this is about. You know, this is a new concept to the majority of media houses and many who comment on them. You hear commentaries totally different from what we are talking about here, and you blame no one because issues of reforms in elections are alien issues in our space.

We are used to spaces where the outgoing [President] is the incoming and therefore, you have no conversations about reforms or transition. How can I blame the media practitioner who is 30 years or 40 years old and has never seen a transition or change? These are alien concepts, and I am here to share with you a simplified version of these issues so you can inform the country of what exactly we are trying to do and re-energize and rekindle the spirit of this nation before it collapses on our backs.

Our proposal at the DA is aimed at forming a basis for a national conversation/discussion and debate/dialogue on the future of Uganda and note these are our objectives though other people can add on theirs;

They are six all propagating the idea of a national transition, and reform processes.

The reform processes we have talked about variously include reforming (several) laws including amending the national Constitution.

Here is a breakdown of the principal six objectives.

1. To ensure key Constitutional, Electoral, and administrative reforms that should be debated before the next general elections. Our objective is that before the next general elections, potentially in January next year, we undertake critical legal, political and constitutional reforms before we are enthusiastic about participating in the next elections. I will expound more on what that is about.
2. To ensure the conduct of non-violent, free, fair, credible, verifiable and consequential elections. Firmly prepare for the consequences of an election.
3. To buttress mechanisms that guarantee peaceful and smooth transfer of power from one leader to another. Currently, there is no such mechanism because we do not have a presidential transition act. We do not have a mechanism that guarantees what happens to someone losing power. We know that those with power have acted with bad will against the country. If they are to be forgiven for certain crimes, there must be a framework of understanding the nature of crimes. Are they crimes in persona, or are they state crimes? Where is the framework?
4. To campaign for the implementation of a national reconciliation and reparation plan. Gentlemen and Ladies, so much has been going on for the last 40 years under the leadership of General Museveni and his people. We surely know that we are so many injured citizens. There are so many affected citizens and somehow, the political actors think that this should be ignored, we do not think so. A nation that ignores the injured is a nation of fools, I do not think we are. We cannot afford the luxury of ignoring the citizens who have been injured for a long time. So, what will happen to citizens whose children have been disappeared under the auspices of General Museveni and his people? Should we simply say they melted away like the Ice? We need a framework of truth-telling so that the country can heal from the effects and ravages of bad governance as we usher in a new epoch of leadership that appreciates the damage of our people, that appreciates the values of human rights, values of association, and disagreements. So, we believe that this is lacking and that is why disagreements may be people get grey hair because there is no framework for resolving them. If you disagree you take the fastest flight when regime changes, we can heal the nation of that kind of arrangement.
5. To buttress mechanisms that guarantee continuity of peace, stability, progress, and prosperity for all Ugandans. We all know how power has been abused in this country. At this stage in our country, who is the guarantor of our national security? The national security system has been abused by an individual (General Museveni). Who is the guarantor of our elections because all our elections have been tinkered with? Who is the guarantor of a free and fair electoral process without turning elections into a ritual of sorts? We hesitate as DA to encourage citizens to go into a simple ritual, and simply look on as they are teargassed away and then wait for a declaration. It is a new day, no more stuff. It is not a normal situation; we believe that we must have guarantees because the current security framework cannot guarantee national security. It is repressive, it is partisan. We need a conversation about the guarantees of our security, guarantees of electoral outcomes, and how it can be done. I can understand, that these are alien concepts because we are used to being ruled over like animals. We are saying, we are humans and therefore, there must be full participation, and understanding of why we participate in politics. Otherwise, we can agree to become a casket case. In DA, we are saying we cannot be part of the basket process. We need a very serious process that can guarantee that the outcome of an electoral process is going to be consequential positively in the lives of our common people.

Essentially those are the six objectives for which we come for reforms, and transitional framework. I thought that must be made very clear.

Now who are the stakeholders in all these it is very important to understand the stakeholders…

You and me, belong to a multiplicity of platforms. We have political actors, we have civil society actors, we have citizen platforms, we have cultural institutions, we have religious bodies, we have senior citizens. So, Uganda has bonafide owners. This is not a land of no one or a no man’s land. These stakeholders are the ones we need to be part of this conversation. I have heard people say that you are talking about so many things but General Museveni will not accept. Who tells you that we are here to massage General Museveni?

We must compel General Museveni and his people to listen to the people. Whoever thinks that our job is to take massage oil to him, no we are saying that all must demand from him to listen to people. This is not his father’s estate, it is a bequest to all of us, and therefore, we must all as stakeholders make voices on how our bequest is being managed and we must all make a demand using multiple voices is legitimate.

We must make it known to all stakeholders that these demands are legitimate and we are not trying to impose our views on anybody, we are simply saying, this can’t continue as normal.

We have set ourselves as the DA, a framework we want to share with stakeholders in the form of an agenda because we believe that not all these objectives may be achieved in a single go. There are multiple and some of them have a multiple arrangement. Some of them will have to require the high mighty to climb down their horses to listen and may require the talk, and some of them are simply scared out of their skins.  Therefore, we need a cascaded framework from one issue to another that will compel them to say hey, I think we are being considered.

The idea of politicians barking at each other must stop and agree on the framework…I have heard politicians vowing to crush each other. Those who want to crush each other please go to City Square we shall watch you crush each other, but we have a nation to save. If you want to box, go and box, but for our country, we are making these clear demands.

So, we have our agenda cascaded;

The first one is to go for key Constitutional, electoral, and administrative reforms. I have spoken about that and you are aware that I have put before parliament, eight bills for which we are going to demand space in parliament, and that is going to be first on our agenda because elections are on the rail, and therefore, there is no amount of waiting we can do. The Electoral Commission in its shape has outed a roadmap, and that roadmap must feed into the agenda of reforms. I have explained before the nature of electoral and constitutional reforms that we desire. Probably, I will speak about them a little bit later in brief.

The second item on the agenda is the national reconciliation and reparation program.

The third is the adoption of the consensus devolution model. This is a power-sharing model across the country to replace what we know as decentralization that has failed us. You come from communities where decentralization is a dead and buried animal. If you want to enhance the sharing of the national resources and the delivery of services, we want a redo. We are proposing a devolution framework, call it a federal framework where power is going to be shared, and decongest the corrupt center. Where it works, the same number of people represent the same of MPs, councilors, etc. you are aware that in Parliament, we have MPs that came with 4,000 votes, and their constituency has 6,000 voters. In my constituency, Nyendo as a parish alone, has over 6,000 voters. I am aware in Nansana for example, a single parish could have about 8,000 people! My brother the Hon. Sseggona represents half a million people! I mean, what kind of framework of representation is that? We need a serious conversation, and for example, you have heard a contradiction on the implementation of the Parish Development Model. There are parishes with 1,000 people juxtapose it with Nyendo of 6,000 people. How do you give those parishes the same amount of money? That is fraud. Therefore, we want to overcome fraud in the sharing of national resources, and part of that is to review the framework of representation at all political levels. I do not think it is rocket science. There are challenges in its implementation, but can we begin at particular levels and then increasingly cascade, and review until we have a fine model?

We can a hybrid and say for constituencies, we shall use proportional representation, probably for affirmative action, we shall look at another way. Certainly, there must be a starting point. There is no need have deny instances of the skewed nature of representation. That is the nature of our conversation that we want to see.

I have talked about agenda five which is to organize free, fair, but consequential elections. That is a must. The nature of conversation is what we shall expound when we meet with our colleagues.

Then six, peaceful and smooth transfer of power from the NRM to the next Government. Surely, it is not true that the next government is the NRM government.  If it is the case then there is no need for us to talk about elections in this country. The next Government could be of any (political) party. That is what democracy is about. For you to say that the next government is NRM is to say that we are all stupid, and therefore, we participate in these activities as a ritual. So, the conversation as to any party is capable of being well structured, organized in a free and fair process can take over the reigns of power is what we want to be part of as the DA. The biggest problem is fear to the transition.

We want to share with our colleagues that in the national conversation talked about, there should be an agenda to enact a Transitional act. Remember comrade Hon. Lulume Bayiga in the ninth parliament, attempted to present the presidential transition bill, he did not even get leave of parliament because the whole idea of change sends cold down people’s spines. We want people to understand that change will happen.

We also want a devolution act. I talked about devolution and the death of decentralization. These are very eminent provisions we want to see in the kind of amendments we want to see coming.

So, essentially, the reform process will include constitutional, electoral, and administrative reforms.

I talked about the electoral and constitutional reforms hitherto in parliament and here, that include;

Restoration of the presidential term limits which are key. I have heard colleagues say that term limits should also come with the age limit. Perfect, can we have a conversation on how those two feed into each other? Do we need both? Do we need one? Probably some of you are young people, and nobody can blame you. But those of you who were around during the conversation in the CA time, I know the people’s conversations that the age was targeting someone and I know that was.

So, are we as a people going to go for a legislative retribution and revenge or we can go for a higher and bigger issue which is term limit? When we go term limit in our view, you can control both the young, and the old. But the conversation as to return of the age limit is important, let us have it. I can see we may need both of them. So, merely dismissing either all, for me is an act of cowardice. If we want to change this country, political leaders and actors, and pretenders must at least, have the courage to speak about very controversial issues including the ones I have mentioned. But simply running way and say that is not possible, no for us, we just want an election, which election?

So, we would like to invite serious political leaders to rise to the occasion to run away from their cowardice and speak about these issues with courage.

I talked about the critical amendments in the executive dropping of the vice president to go for the deputy president, and I do not want to bore you with that conversation.

I talked about the downsizing of parliament from the current bloated one of 559 to reduce it by a third. Can we have that conversation? Is there any sane citizen who can say that that parliament can even be enlarged? In the current framework, actually, we are about to extend the size of parliament by an extra 50 MPs, and I want to inform the country that there is an ongoing process to enlarge parliament with an additional 50 MPs. For me, that is a crime against citizens. So, can we have a national conversation as to how this parliament can be downsized? When we discuss devolution, we cannot discussing devolution, and expansion at the same statement. We can agree if we cannot devolve, then some MPs can go and become councilors in their areas and influence local issues. I am not trying to downplay their quality no. some MPs can go and become governors in their community. Who knows that it is a guarantee is going to be in the next parliament?

So, I am speaking generally about myself, not anyone else. That is the courage we need from our leaders not simply appetite to participate in the next elections regardless of their consequences.

Time has come when we without contradiction speak about the possibilities and impossibilities and as I am now telling you that if nothing is done, the next Parliament will be 600, and more (MPs). Remember, the structure of our economy is increasingly becoming narrow, and narrow. So, we have increasing more mouth to feed, and a lot more appetite than the resources at our disposal. So, must we expand political offices or we need to expand the framework for service provision in the country?

I have explained the bills in parliament, including the Presidential Elections act for amendment, the parliamentary elections act for amendment, the local government act for amendment, the political organisations act, and other acts for amendment.

Critically, what we are targeting at the DA in the Political Organisations Act is the way it was enacted which was in bad faith. Political parties for example, are almost incapable of forming registered coalitions. I have heard comrades in other political platforms talking about their willingness to work with others. You cannot register that kind of arrangement. So, what was the spirit of enacting that law? We are saying that law is due for amendment to make it possible for platforms to work together in a registrable legal framework. You cannot have scattered multiple groupings that are inconsequential and incapable of changing our electoral and political landscape.

I talked about amending the Electoral Commission Act, with a view of doing two things; one to allow for the voting of the diaspora citizens that are over 2 million voters that the EC can use  our missions and embassies to act as polling stations…

Two, the voting of prisoners. It is not that you lose all rights when you are a prisoner, and we are saying that the only prisoners that cannot vote are those on the death row because the presumption of the law is that when you on a death row, you are decommissioned. So, the rest must have the right to vote. Luckily, that subject has been litigated upon, and in 2021, court hammered a decision that the Electoral Commission not making the prisoners and diaspora, is violation of their rights.