Former presidential assistant for research and information Duncan Abigaba has pushed back against claims by former Kira Municipality MP Ssemujju Nganda that Uganda’s Cabinet is dominated by family and marital networks linked to President Yoweri Museveni.
Ssemujju had recently criticised the structure of the new Cabinet, arguing that several senior officials were connected through blood or marriage ties to the First Family, and warning that the trend risked entrenching a dynastic system of governance.
He also questioned the independence and credibility of the ongoing ministerial vetting process.
In a strongly worded response, Abigaba dismissed the allegations, arguing that the individuals mentioned in the Cabinet had built their own political and professional credentials over decades of public service and national contribution.
“Hon. Ssemujju, I disagree. These people have earned the right to be appointed. Let's take the example of Henry Tumukunde & Jim Muhwezi. The two were graduates of Makerere. Muhwezi was a Police Officer. Tumukunde could have joined Government. They abandoned various opportunities to join NRA in early 1980s, to fight against extra judicial killings and anarchy. I don't know where your own relatives were.
"Fast forward, the two are democratically elected Members of Parliament, they're both lawyers, they don't even come from the same village as the President. So, what stops them from joining cabinet?” Abigaba stated.
He further argued that participation in the National Resistance Army (NRA) liberation struggle remains a key historical credential that should not be dismissed when evaluating leadership positions in Uganda’s current political order.
According to him, many of the individuals criticised by opposition figures have consistently served in government, security institutions, and elective politics over the years.
Abigaba’s remarks also sought to challenge the broader narrative that Cabinet appointments are primarily driven by kinship ties.
He maintained that Uganda’s political leadership has evolved through a mix of historical struggle, electoral legitimacy, and institutional experience.
Political analysts note that the exchange reflects a recurring debate in Uganda’s governance discourse, where questions of meritocracy, liberation history, and personal networks often intersect in the assessment of top government appointments.
Ssemujju’s criticism had earlier highlighted figures he described as being closely linked to the President’s extended family circle, arguing that such connections risk undermining public trust in state institutions.
His remarks also called for greater scrutiny of the composition of the executive and its implications for national governance.