Otafiire: This Is the Problem I Have with Muhoozi — and Why He Shouldn’t be Museveni’s Automatic Successor

A public war of words between Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba and veteran minister Kahinda Otafiire has erupted once again, bringing Uganda’s succession debate and the question of a possible Muhoozi presidency back into sharp focus.

The latest confrontation has taken an unusually personal turn. After Otafiire spoke in Parliament about generals who prefer violence to resolve problems, Muhoozi, the Chief of Defence Forces, appeared to take the remarks as a direct attack. He demanded an apology, initially giving the minister a week before shortening the deadline to just three days, while threatening to have him arrested.

But beneath the threats, defiant responses and years of political tension lies a deeper disagreement over the future of Uganda. The Pearl Times traces the feud between Muhoozi and Otafiire.

In recent years, Muhoozi has increasingly positioned himself as a potential successor to his father, President Yoweri Museveni, whenever the veteran leader eventually retires. The campaign has attracted influential allies and supporters who openly promote his presidential ambitions. Yet it has also exposed divisions within the ruling establishment, with Otafiire emerging as one of the most outspoken opponents of the idea.

The bush war veteran and long-serving minister has made statements that could easily be interpreted as personal hostility towards Museveni’s son. He has challenged Muhoozi’s conduct, questioned the propriety of a serving military officer making political declarations and warned against what he sees as the dangers of turning political succession into a family affair.

Yet Otafiire has repeatedly insisted that he does not hate Muhoozi personally. His problem, he says, is with the prospect of Muhoozi becoming president and what that could mean for democracy, the military and the principles for which he and others fought during the liberation struggle.

That distinction has been at the centre of his public explanations for years. From dismissing the idea of a political inheritance to warning that Uganda could drift towards a system of successive rulers from one family, Otafiire has offered a series of blunt arguments about why he does not support a Muhoozi presidency.

As the latest confrontation threatens to deepen their feud, we revisit the statements in which Otafiire has explained, in his own words, what he sees as the problem with Muhoozi.

In a February 2024 interview, Otafiire directly addressed the growing perception that he had a personal grudge against the president’s son.

“People say I hate Muhoozi, the president’s son,” he said. “I do not personally hate him.”

He then drew a distinction between Muhoozi as an individual and Muhoozi as a potential head of state.

“What I don’t support is him becoming president. There is a difference. Kainerugaba the president’s son, I like him, but Kainerugaba the president, I don’t support him, and I cannot hide.”

For Otafiire, the issue was not simply about who occupied State House but about the principles governing how power is acquired and transferred.

He warned that allowing political leadership to become a family inheritance could undermine the democratic ideals he associates with Uganda’s liberation struggle.

Drawing a comparison with hereditary systems, he invoked the idea of successive sultans and cautioned that such a direction would undermine the essence of democracy.

“That is dangerous. Let him prove to Ugandans that he is capable,” he said.

In the same interview, Otafiire reportedly argued that if Muhoozi wanted to become president, he should seek the office through established democratic procedures and a competitive election rather than rely on his relationship with Museveni.

Otafiire’s objections have not always amounted to an outright rejection of Muhoozi’s right to pursue political office.

In December 2022, as debate about Muhoozi’s political ambitions intensified, the minister told NTV Uganda that the general was free to contest for the presidency, including against his own father.

“That is his democratic right. I can’t stop him. It is his democratic right. Let him compete against his father and we shall defeat him like we have defeated others before,” Otafiire said.

At the time, Otafiire was backing Museveni to remain the National Resistance Movement’s presidential candidate in the 2026 election.

“For us who have a rational understanding and grounded in NRM, we said we still want Gen Museveni in charge. Come 2026, I am campaigning for Gen Museveni to come back as our flag bearer,” he said.

He also rejected suggestions that the party had a responsibility to prepare Muhoozi for leadership.

“No one has groomed Gen Muhoozi. It isn’t our duty. It isn’t our responsibility to groom individuals. The party identifies its cadres,” he said.

Otafiire further challenged those dissatisfied with the NRM’s direction to form their own political organisations and compete for power.

“If you don’t like Gen Museveni or the party of NRM, have your party, compete with us, defeat us; then we shall know,” he said.

His remarks revealed an important aspect of his position: he did not claim the right to prevent Muhoozi from seeking the presidency. Instead, he insisted that the general should face the same political contest as other aspirants.

By January 2023, Otafiire’s criticism had become more pointed, particularly over Muhoozi’s public statements and the involvement of serving military officers in political affairs.

Speaking on CBS FM, he warned Muhoozi against treating the historical leaders of the ruling party with contempt.

“We know you (Muhoozi) are Museveni’s son but we shall not allow you to disrespect us (historicals),” he said.

Otafiire invoked the sacrifices made during the struggle that brought the NRM to power, arguing that the democratic space created through that struggle should not be taken for granted.

“We fought so hard and shed blood to bring this democracy and we shall not let it die as we look on idly,” he said.

His criticism also centred on Muhoozi’s position in the military. Otafiire argued that a serving army officer should not make political declarations that could blur the boundary between the armed forces and partisan politics.

“I don’t have any grudge with Muhoozi but as a serving army officer, he should not make any political statements,” he said.

He questioned the example such conduct could set for other officers.

“Sincerely someone who is not law-abiding, how could I follow him? What example is he setting for the rest of the other officers?” he asked.

The remarks captured one of Otafiire’s recurring concerns: that Muhoozi’s military position and political ambitions could become entangled in ways that challenge the principle of a politically neutral army.

Otafiire also took issue with the description of Muhoozi as a “standby generator”, a phrase used by supporters to suggest that the general was ready to take over from Museveni.

In remarks reported at the time, Otafiire questioned why the country would need a standby leader while Museveni remained in office and rejected the suggestion that Muhoozi should be treated as an automatic successor.

The precise wording of the extended analogy has been reported inconsistently, but its central message was clear: Otafiire opposed the idea that Muhoozi’s position as the president’s son should place him in a privileged line of succession.

The disagreement resurfaced forcefully in February 2026, when Otafiire again rejected claims that his criticism was driven by personal animosity.

“No, I hate a Muhoozi presidency,” he said.

The distinction was consistent with his earlier statements: he was not declaring hatred for Muhoozi as a person but expressing opposition to the prospect of him becoming head of state.

Otafiire also warned that ordinary Ugandans, rather than political elites, would bear the consequences of a succession crisis or a violent struggle over power.

“It’s you the people who pay for the consequences because I’ll long be gone (dead),” he said.

He referred to his own history in dangerous situations, arguing that he was not easily intimidated by threats.

“I have been in very dangerous situations on the battlefield. I have already risked my life,” he said.

The comments came amid renewed exchanges involving Muhoozi, who had publicly called on Otafiire to stop drawing him into what he described as a personal dispute with Museveni.

“Hon. Otafiire, should stop trying to use me in his fights with my father. He has a very big problem with Mzee, he knows it. Let us see if Mzee arrests him,” Muhoozi posted.

In another post, he escalated the threat.

“Let Mzee decide what to do with Hon. Otafiire. It won’t take us half a second to arrest him.”

The parliamentary remarks that reignited the feud

The latest confrontation began with Otafiire’s comments in Parliament on October 1, 2026, during a discussion about resolving political disagreements.

Without mentioning Muhoozi by name, the minister argued that the ability to resolve conflict without violence was a defining feature of civilisation.

“The hallmark of civilization is how people resolve contradiction without violence,” he told legislators.

He then delivered the remark that appeared to trigger Muhoozi’s reaction.

“When you see a general who prefers violence as the best means of solving problems, then there is a problem,” Otafiire said.

He added that the generals he admired were those capable of resolving disputes without resorting to force.

“The greatest generals I know of are those who resolve problems without shooting a bullet.”

Otafiire also urged members of the ruling party to reflect on their conduct and political environment, describing the opposition as a mirror through which the NRM could examine itself.

“You know, you never see how beautiful your face is or how ugly your face is until you look into the mirror, and, colleagues on the NRM side, this opposition is our mirror of reflection,” he said.

Muhoozi interpreted the remarks as an attack on him and responded publicly, first issuing a one-week ultimatum for Otafiire to apologise.

“I hear my junior MG. Otafiire made some statements in parliament against me. I’m giving him exactly 1 week to apologise to me or else he will see,” he posted.

“One week is too long, he has 3 days to apologise.”

The exchange has further exposed the tension between a serving military chief who has been at the centre of succession speculation and a veteran minister who has repeatedly challenged the idea of a Muhoozi presidency.

Otafiire’s defiance continued during a public lecture at Valley University, where he spoke about leadership, character and the conduct of those seeking public office.

He argued that a person’s suitability for leadership should be judged by how they had behaved in society.

“Are you a thief? Are you a liar? Are you a rapist? It’s how you have conducted yourself in society that determines your quality of leadership,” he said.

He also recalled his years in the bush war, referring to his involvement in the struggles against Idi Amin and Milton Obote and his time in the Luweero Triangle.

“Initially I told you, I fought Idi Amin—was I safe? I fought Milton Obote. I was in Luweero for five years, did I know I’d be here?”

He then delivered a declaration that has become central to the latest political drama.

“I would rather die on my feet fighting than live on my knees begging.”

Although the remarks came amid the escalating dispute with Muhoozi, Otafiire was speaking more broadly about leadership and political conduct. He did not frame the entire lecture as a response to the general.

Still, his words reinforced the image of a minister unwilling to retreat under pressure, even as the dispute raises questions about the consequences of open confrontation between senior figures in the ruling establishment.

Across years of interviews and public statements, Otafiire has returned to several themes: that Muhoozi should not be treated as an automatic successor to Museveni; that serving military officers should stay out of partisan politics; and that Uganda’s leadership should be determined through democratic competition rather than family connections.

His position has not been a blanket denial of Muhoozi’s right to seek the presidency. In 2022, he explicitly said Muhoozi was free to contest and face political opponents, including his father. His criticism has instead focused on what he sees as the political and institutional risks of presenting the general as the country’s natural next leader.

That is the distinction Otafiire has repeatedly tried to make when confronted with accusations of personal hatred.

“I do not personally hate him,” he said in 2024.

But on the question of a Muhoozi presidency, he has been equally direct: “What I don’t support is him becoming president.”

With the latest ultimatum and threats of arrest adding a new dimension to their long-running disagreement, Otafiire’s explanation remains at the centre of the dispute. For him, the question is not simply whether Muhoozi can succeed his father. It is whether Uganda’s political future should be shaped by democratic competition or by the expectation that power will pass from one member of a family to another.

Meanwhile, Otafiire’s son, who is a soldier, has issued a strong warning to those thinking of arresting his father, even as PLU moved to stage a rally in Otafiire’s home town. (See Details Here and There).

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.