The arrest of Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago has triggered more than a legal and political dispute. It has reignited a broader national debate about power, accountability and the increasingly blurred lines between official authority and public intimidation.

In the days following Lukwago’s detention, Chief of Defence Forces Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba used social media to issue warnings of arrest against several opposition politicians, public officials and even cultural leaders.

The remarks have intensified concerns among critics who argue that repeated threats from one of the country’s most powerful military figures risk normalising fear in public life. At the centre of the controversy is not simply who was threatened, but what the threats reveal about the state of Uganda’s political discourse.

Among those mentioned by Muhoozi was National Unity Platform (NUP) president Robert Kyagulanyi, better known as Bobi Wine. Kyagulanyi has long been a frequent target of the army chief’s social media commentary.

Following the January 2026 elections, Muhoozi claimed that his forces had killed 22 NUP supporters and suggested he hoped Bobi Wine would be next. In another post, he wrote: “Kabobi knows that the only person protecting him from me is my father.”

Whether intended as political rhetoric, provocation or genuine threats, such statements carry unusual weight because they come from the country’s top military officer. That distinction matters.

In most democracies, military leaders are expected to operate within clearly defined constitutional roles and maintain political neutrality. When military power becomes intertwined with partisan disputes, questions inevitably arise about civilian oversight, the rule of law and the separation between political competition and state coercion.

The controversy deepened after former Kira Municipality MP Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda commented on the deployment of soldiers around Lukwago’s residence on June 15. The deployment allegedly prevented the service of court papers linked to a treason case concerning opposition figure Dr Kizza Besigye.

Responding on social media, Muhoozi wrote: “Please serve the papers, and I’ll arrest both you and whoever serves them!” Ssemujju dismissed the threat and argued that public officials should remain accountable to citizens.

“Let people stop being excessively afraid of Muhoozi. Muhoozi has a duty to serve the interests of Ugandans, not his personal interests. He’s paid by taxpayers, and those taxpayers have every right to hold him accountable. So, whatever he says, I care very little about it,” he said.

Leader of the Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi was also drawn into the dispute. After Muhoozi posted that “Ssemujju and Joel will follow very soon,” Ssenyonyi publicly called on President Yoweri Museveni to intervene.

“Why doesn’t Gen. Yoweri Museveni take action against this man, Muhoozi, because he is his son?” Ssenyonyi asked.

“He keeps flouting every law in the book.” The significance of these exchanges extends beyond the individuals involved.

Over recent years, social media has become an increasingly important political arena in Uganda. Statements that might once have been confined to private conversations or political rallies now reach millions instantly.

When those statements originate from officials wielding significant state power, they can shape public perceptions, influence political behaviour and affect how citizens view their own security.

What has changed is not merely the frequency of such comments but the range of targets. Opposition politicians are no longer the only recipients. Even senior state officials have not been spared. Major Tom Magambo, the Director of Criminal Investigations, was recently threatened with arrest after Muhoozi accused him of conducting arrests on behalf of the President.

“Magambo likes arresting people saying that Mzee has sent him. Well, now it’s his turn to be arrested,” Muhoozi wrote.

For ordinary Ugandans, the deeper issue is not whether every threat will be acted upon. Most are not. The larger question is what happens when threats of arrest become a routine feature of political communication.

Supporters may dismiss the remarks as provocative online banter. Critics see something more serious: the gradual erosion of confidence in due process and legal institutions. When citizens begin to believe that arrest depends on political favour or public criticism rather than established legal procedures, trust in institutions can weaken.

The debate sparked by Lukwago’s arrest is therefore about more than a handful of social media posts. It touches on fundamental questions about how power is exercised, how public officials communicate and how democratic institutions maintain legitimacy.

As Uganda moves toward another politically significant period, those questions are unlikely to disappear. If anything, they are becoming harder to ignore.

The post Muhoozi: Ugandans gripped by fear of arrest appeared first on The Observer Media Ltd.