A fresh debate on citizenship, identity and political privilege in Uganda has intensified after lawyer Godwin Toko expanded his views on the controversy surrounding the rejected nomination of Dr Lawrence Muganga as Minister for Internal Affairs, a decision linked to concerns over dual citizenship.
In a detailed commentary, Toko argued that public discussions about Banyarwanda in Uganda often blur important internal distinctions within the community, leading to generalisations that obscure lived realities.
“There are three groups of Banyarwanda in Uganda,” Toko stated, introducing a classification he says is necessary for a clearer national conversation.
He described the first group as the largest and most integrated into everyday Ugandan life.
According to him, this group includes ordinary citizens who are fully embedded in society and often indistinguishable from other Ugandans in daily interactions.
“The first are those who are just living their normal lives. The majority of Banyarwanda belong here,” he wrote, adding that they are found across professions and social classes, from students and boda boda riders to lawyers and unemployed youth navigating economic hardship.
Toko said this group is often overlooked in national debates despite forming the backbone of the community’s presence in Uganda.
The second group, he argued, consists of individuals who are frequently affected by diplomatic tensions between Uganda and Rwanda.
He said this category suffers disproportionately whenever relations between the two countries deteriorate, leading to suspicion and social pressure.
“The second are those who face a lot of problems partly bse the state is suspicious of Rwanda - the country that is - & has decided that ignoring the ‘Banyarwanda question’ is the best way out,” he noted, warning that this approach leaves many vulnerable.
He added: “Whenever Uganda and Rwanda have issues in their relationship, this group bears the brunt of it. This is the group that needs the help and support of ALL Ugandans.”
The third group, according to Toko, is a small but influential elite connected to political and economic power structures.
He described them as part of Uganda’s broader 0.5 per cent elite class, enjoying access and privileges unavailable to ordinary citizens.
“The third group is of the ultra-privileged Banyarwanda who belong to Uganda’s 0.5 per cent,” he stated, drawing parallels with elite networks across other ethnic communities in the country.
He alleged that this group often enjoys privileged access to political leadership and security protection.
“From their political connections, those in this group have a lot of money - or at least create the impression that they do. They have military bodyguards, drive around in cars that have no numberplated & the police won't touch them,” Toko wrote.
He further claimed that accountability is often uneven when dealing with individuals in this category, adding: “As we now know, they can even utter potentially treasonable statements... without being held accountable.”
Toko also accused members of this elite group of portraying themselves as representatives of all Banyarwanda in Uganda, including those in less privileged categories.
“The interesting twist is that the third group claim that ALL, or at least most Banyarwanda in Uganda belong to the second group - including themselves - and that they speak for those Banyarwanda,” he stated.
He warned that this framing risks distorting public discourse and fueling mistrust, particularly when calls for accountability are interpreted through an ethnic lens.
“Try to hold them accountable for anything, however unrelated, and they claim you’re ethnically profiling them,” he added.
Toko concluded by noting that many in the first two groups often feel alienated from the third, accusing it of amplifying grievances while benefiting from political proximity.
“From my interactions with those in group one and two, many don't like those in group three and see them as leeches who compound whatever problem they have,” he said.