A seating incident involving Ugandan musician and presidential adviser Eddy Kenzo during President Yoweri Museveni’s swearing-in ceremony has triggered renewed scrutiny of protocol management at high-level state functions.
Kenzo was reportedly seated in the ministerial section alongside his wife, Minister Phiona Nyamutoro, before a protocol officer moved him from the chair.
The moment, captured in widely circulated images, sparked mixed reactions online, with some questioning the handling of the situation and others defending the enforcement of seating arrangements reserved for ministers and accredited officials.
Kenzo later dismissed the viral image as misleading, claiming it was digitally altered and insisting that he and his wife had been properly guided by official protocol. Organisers have not issued a detailed clarification on the incident.
Amid the controversy, political analyst David Soita Masinde has weighed in, arguing that the episode reflects deeper weaknesses in event coordination rather than a simple breach of rules by the guest.
He said the uproar was “a classic show of how bad protocol creates unnecessary drama,” adding that such mistakes are avoidable in properly managed state events.
According to Masinde, the failure begins long before any guest is seated.
“If you are running a high-level state event, the work happens at the door. You vet at the gate. You label the chairs. You direct the guests,” he said.
He criticised what he described as delayed enforcement of seating rules, arguing that corrective action becomes problematic once guests are already settled.
“You do not let a man of his profile sit down, get comfortable, and wait fifteen minutes before deciding he’s in the ‘wrong’ place,” he added.
Masinde warned that such late interventions shift the focus from order to perception, potentially damaging the image of the organisers.
“At that point, the ‘correction’ is no longer about the rules. It’s about optics,” he noted.
The analyst further argued that removing a spouse from sitting next to their partner in a public setting risks creating unnecessary embarrassment and public backlash.
“When you evict a spouse from sitting next to their partner in public, you aren’t ‘enforcing order,’ you are broadcasting administrative incompetence,” he said.
He maintained that if seating was strictly reserved for ministers, then the error occurred at the entry stage rather than at the point of removal.
“If the seat was reserved for a Minister, the error occurred the second he was allowed to reach it,” Masinde observed.
He concluded that protocol should serve a protective role rather than a punitive one, especially during sensitive national events attended by high-profile guests.
“Protocol is a shield to protect the dignity of the state, not a weapon to embarrass guests. Fix your gates,” he said.