General Muhoozi Critics: A Case of Hypocrisy or Sheer Ignorance?

Critics of Muhoozi often fail to acknowledge the historical context of Western interference in African governance.

 

The criticism and abuse directed at the Chief of Defence Forces, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, following his candid remarks about the US Ambassador to Uganda reflect either a profound lack of awareness or sheer hypocrisy.

These reactions, especially from self-proclaimed intellectuals and elites on social media, ignore the well-documented history of Western interventionism in Africa.

The US's policy of interventionism, rooted in its involvement in World War II, has shaped its approach to global affairs for decades. Whether under Republican or Democratic leadership, the aim has remained consistent: ensuring other nations conform to its economic and security interests.

Uganda’s critics are quick to condemn Muhoozi, yet they conveniently overlook the broader context of this interventionist legacy and its often devastating consequences for African nations.

For Uganda, the narrative of resistance to foreign manipulation is not new. President Yoweri Museveni’s tenure has been defined by his assertive nationalism, as captured in a declassified CIA assessment from 1986. The report described him as an “assertive nationalist” likely to pursue a non-aligned and opportunistic foreign policy.

While the CIA recognised his pragmatic approach to engaging with both Eastern and Western powers, they underestimated his resolve to resist external dependency and interference.

Over the years, this resistance has only grown stronger. Uganda has become a regional powerhouse, achieving middle-income status, hosting refugees instead of producing them, and contributing significantly to regional security in volatile areas like Somalia.

This trajectory has made Uganda a difficult target for Western intervention, especially with its strengthened ties to China and Russia and its leadership within the East African Community (EAC).

Critics of Muhoozi often fail to acknowledge the historical context of Western interference in African governance. From the assassination of Congo’s Patrice Lumumba to the overthrow of Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana and the NATO-backed destruction of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, the West’s track record of intervention has left a trail of devastation.

For Uganda, the current focus appears to be on destabilisation from within—through fostering public dissent, sanctioning leaders, and promoting divisive ideologies that undermine the nation’s socio-political cohesion.

General Muhoozi represents a continuation of the revolutionary fabric that has resisted such manipulation, from leaders like Kabalega and Nyabingi Muhumuza to President Museveni himself. His critics, many of whom benefit from the intellectual heritage of Africa’s anti-colonial struggles, ironically align themselves with forces that seek to erode the continent’s sovereignty.

The ongoing attacks on Muhoozi and others who voice opposition to foreign interference reflect a dangerous precedent. Instead of encouraging open debate, they silence dissent, paving the way for radicalisation. As the late Mwalimu Julius Nyerere aptly stated, “Africa must be radicalsed. Without radicalization, there can be no change.”

The wave of military-led uprisings in West Africa underscores this reality, sparked by frustrations with the very systems of Western dominance that Uganda has managed to resist.

The West’s inability to control Uganda—let alone the growing unity of the East African Community—is a source of profound anxiety. While interventionism may once have relied on exploiting weaknesses in governance, Uganda’s self-reliance and regional alliances present a formidable challenge.

The question remains: are Muhoozi’s critics truly unaware of this historical and political context, or are they willful participants in a larger agenda to weaken Uganda’s sovereignty? Either way, their opposition risks undermining the very freedoms and stability they claim to defend.