In the January 2026 presidential election, the Alliance for National Transformation (ANT) got 59,276 votes. The party was represented by Maj Gen (Rtd) Mugisha Muntu, who served as its flag bearer. He garnered 0.53% of the total valid votes cast, placing fourth in the race.
After the elections, ANT embarked on an internal audit of its performance, holding regional consultations across Uganda. The party says the process is aimed at evaluating its strengths, weaknesses, and future direction as it prepares for political engagements ahead of 2031.
Speaking to the Nile Post, Alice Alaso, ANT’s acting National Coordinator, said the party is shifting from election mode to institutional rebuilding. She noted that ANT is completing a nationwide review while also training women leaders in lobbying and advocacy.
Alaso further explained that the party’s leadership remains in acting capacity due to resource constraints and constitutional requirements for grassroots elections. She said substantive leadership will be elected once funds are secured, as the party continues to prepare its internal structures for a full transition process.
Excerpts;-
What is ANT currently focusing on following the 2026 general elections?
The first thing we did after the elections was to conduct a comprehensive review of the entire electoral process. We organized ten regional and sub-regional meetings and met our candidates, party leaders, and structures that participated in the elections. The purpose was to evaluate our performance, identify strengths and weaknesses, and determine what lessons we could learn moving forward.
We have completed that exercise and are currently compiling the final report. The findings from that report will guide the next phase of our activities as a party.
In addition, we used those meetings as an opportunity to train women leaders. We felt it was important to equip them with skills in lobbying, advocacy, and political engagement. We conducted these trainings in all ten regions because we believe women play a critical role in shaping the future of our country and our party.
Another important decision we took was to officially join IPOD now that ANT has representation in Parliament. We had a choice not to join, but after careful consideration we decided that participation was important.
At ANT, we strongly believe in dialogue. We do not believe that the future of Uganda will be secured through coercion or through the exclusion of people with different political views. Neither do we believe that political actors should treat one another as enemies. The future of this country depends on engagement, discussion, and the willingness of different actors to meet and find common ground.
That is why we chose to join IPOD. We hope that through that platform we can contribute ideas, influence decisions, and access broader forums where national issues are discussed.
Many opposition leaders have previously criticised IPOD, describing it as ineffective and even useless. Why did ANT decide to join a platform that some opposition figures have openly rejected?
I think we need to avoid broad generalizations. The fact that some opposition leaders have criticized IPOD does not automatically mean the platform has no value. I was personally involved when the first IPOD Memorandum of Understanding was signed. At that time, I was Secretary General of the Blue Party (FDC) and participated in those discussions. The principles upon which IPOD was founded remain relevant today.
The original vision was to create a platform where political actors could engage constructively, discuss national issues, and promote dialogue. Those objectives are still important.The challenge has been that successive governments have often preferred to either isolate or co-opt political actors rather than genuinely engage them. That has weakened the effectiveness of such platforms.
Nevertheless, we joined IPOD fully aware of these challenges. We believe that if you truly support dialogue, you cannot reject every platform where dialogue might occur. We believe we are strong enough to articulate our views and defend our principles within that space.
Apart from election reviews and joining IPOD, what other major activities is ANT currently pursuing?
Another major issue is our decision to challenge the Sovereignty Act in court. After the amendments that were made before the law was passed, it became clear that the legislation now specifically targets political parties and civil society organizations. Since we are among those directly affected, we believe it is important to challenge the law through legal means.
We are working with a team of lawyers and constitutional experts to prepare a petition. We believe there are significant concerns regarding the implications of the law for democratic participation and civic engagement.
Let me turn to internal party matters. You continue to serve in an acting leadership position. When will ANT hold elections for substantive leadership?
We would have completed that process already if resources had allowed. Our constitution requires us to elect delegates from the grassroots structures. Those delegates then attend a national delegates’ conference where substantive national leaders are elected. That process requires significant financial and organizational resources. Because of resource constraints, we have not yet been able to complete the exercise.
The acting arrangements should therefore be understood as temporary. Once resources become available, we will conduct the necessary structural activities and elect substantive leaders.
There is another reason for the acting status. Under our constitution, when a party leader runs for the presidency, they relinquish their position as the top party official while remaining part of the national leadership. That is what happened in our case. The previous leader stepped aside and I was serving as deputy. As a result, I became acting leader. I am essentially holding the position until the party completes its transition process.
Are there specific reforms that ANT is currently advocating for?
Yes. Although we are still finalising our post-election review report, our broader position on reforms has always been clear. We want a truly independent, credible, and accountable Electoral Commission. We believe elections should be managed by an institution that enjoys public confidence and is free from political influence. We also believe there should be less military involvement in civilian political affairs. Political competition should be conducted by civilians through democratic institutions.
Another important reform is the reduction of money’s influence in politics. Elections should not be determined by who spends the most money. Citizens should be able to choose leaders based on ideas, competence, and integrity.
We also support the restoration of presidential term limits. We believe term limits are an important safeguard against the concentration of power and help promote democratic renewal. While these reforms may not be immediately achievable, we believe they are necessary for Uganda’s future.
Looking at recent developments in Parliament, particularly the election of the Speaker and other appointments, what do you think they tell us about the direction of Uganda’s politics?
The political environment has changed significantly since I served as a Member of Parliament. Unfortunately, many of those changes have not strengthened democratic institutions. In earlier parliaments there was still considerable room for independent debate and dissent. Members could challenge government decisions without feeling that every outcome had already been predetermined.
Over time, however, the influence of the Executive over Parliament has increased substantially. The contests over parliamentary leadership have become more intense and more closely linked to wider political calculations. What we have witnessed in recent years is an increasing interest by the Executive in determining who occupies key parliamentary positions. That trend raises concerns about the independence of Parliament.
In my view, the growing influence of the Executive over legislative institutions reflects broader political changes taking place within the country.
Some analysts argue that recent political appointments suggest preparations for a future political transition. Do you agree?
I think there are indications that a transition process is taking shape. One of the reasons people make that argument is because of the increasing political prominence of the Chief of Defence Forces. Previous military leaders generally avoided direct political engagement. Today, however, we see a different dynamic.
There appears to be a gradual alignment between political structures, military influence, and broader state institutions. Whether one agrees with that interpretation or not, it is difficult to ignore the fact that political actors increasingly position themselves in relation to emerging centres of influence. That is why many people interpret recent appointments and political developments as part of a broader transition process.
At the same time, President Museveni remains the central political figure. Any discussion about transition must recognize that reality. The key question is not whether transition is happening, but how it will ultimately unfold and whether it will be managed in a way that promotes stability and democratic governance.
You have suggested that there are signs of a transition taking place. How do you think this affects Parliament and the way it operates?
My concern is that Parliament is becoming increasingly constrained. The space for independent decision-making appears to be shrinking, and the ability of Members of Parliament to act as a genuine check on executive power is becoming more limited.
In previous parliaments, despite disagreements and political differences, there was still room for robust debate. Members could challenge government positions, raise concerns, and influence outcomes. Today, the pressure on Parliament is much greater.
I expect that the current Speaker, like some of his predecessors, will face significant pressure from the Executive. The challenge is that parliamentary leaders often find themselves presiding over decisions that may not necessarily reflect the wishes of the public but are driven by political realities and executive influence.
The issue is not about individuals. It is about institutions. When institutions become weaker, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to defend the interests and rights of citizens.
My concern is that Parliament is gradually losing the independence that is necessary for a healthy democracy.
Some women’s rights activists have argued that the recent cabinet appointments did not adequately represent women. They believe more women should have been appointed to key positions. What is your view?
Representation is important, and I understand why women are raising those concerns. However, my view is that numbers alone are not enough. You can have a cabinet that is 50 percent women or even 70 percent women, but if those women do not have real influence, then the numerical representation means very little.
The real issue is whether those who occupy leadership positions have the authority and willingness to influence policy and resource allocation.
For example, if women occupy positions in government but maternity wards remain overcrowded, if mothers continue to deliver babies under difficult conditions, and if health services remain inadequate, then ordinary women will not feel the impact of that representation.
What matters is whether leadership translates into better services, better healthcare, better education, and better opportunities for women and families. So yes, we would like to see more women in leadership, but we also want those women to have meaningful influence and the ability to shape policy decisions.
Medical professionals have expressed concerns about their welfare and remuneration. What is your assessment of the situation?
This issue is extremely important because it affects every Ugandan. The debate should not simply be reduced to how much money interns receive. The real issue is that these are the people who provide essential healthcare services in our hospitals.
Uganda already faces a shortage of doctors and healthcare workers. In many hospitals, medical interns perform a significant portion of the work. They are often the first people patients encounter when seeking treatment. When government fails to adequately support these interns, it is not only harming the interns themselves; it is undermining the entire healthcare system.
These young doctors require support for transport, accommodation, food, and other basic necessities while they carry out demanding work in health facilities. The amounts being discussed are relatively small compared to the broader national budget. Yet the impact on healthcare delivery is enormous.
That is why I consider this a serious policy issue. It is not simply a matter of salaries. It is about protecting the quality of healthcare available to ordinary Ugandans.
What should government do to address the concerns being raised by medical interns?
First, government must recognise that healthcare is an investment, not an expense. Uganda loses enormous amounts of money through corruption and wasteful expenditure. If even a portion of those losses were recovered, the resources needed to support medical interns would be readily available. Secondly, government needs a long-term human resource strategy for healthcare.
We should be planning how many doctors, nurses, specialists, and healthcare workers the country will need over the next ten or twenty years. We should invest accordingly. For example, if we decide that Uganda needs tens of thousands of additional medical professionals, then we must invest in training institutions, internship programs, and employment opportunities. Without that kind of planning, the healthcare system will continue to struggle.
Many hospitals already operate with very limited staffing. In some cases, one consultant and a handful of junior staff are responsible for serving entire communities.
Removing support for interns under such circumstances would only make an already difficult situation worse.
Some people have suggested that funds saved from reducing expenditure on public holidays could be redirected to support medical interns. What is your view?
Yes, because the interns are only asking for about Shs25 billion. In fact, the cost of public holidays is slightly higher than what the interns are asking for. To me, the issue is a lack of concern for ordinary people. Even when government claims to be making savings, those savings rarely seem to benefit citizens directly. If resources can be found for other priorities, then surely resources can also be found to support the young doctors who are helping to keep our health system running.
Do you think the government is genuinely committed to fighting corruption, especially considering the investigations involving former Speaker Anita Among?
In my view, what happened was not primarily about corruption. It was politics. As I explained earlier, I see it within the broader context of political transition.
Anita Among had become a very influential figure within the political system. From a transition perspective, some may have felt that if she retained that influence over the next five years, she could potentially disrupt certain political calculations. There were concerns about where her loyalties lay and how much independent influence she had accumulated.
That is why I see the developments around her as being driven more by political considerations than by a genuine anti-corruption campaign. If this were truly about fighting corruption, many other individuals would also be facing similar scrutiny. Instead, it appeared that she was singled out.
Some people argue that opposition parties are losing support in parts of the country that were previously considered strongholds. Does that concern you?
I think that interpretation is too simplistic. We need to examine the entire electoral process before drawing conclusions. Can anyone honestly stand up and say that Uganda's elections are fully free and fair? There are still concerns about transparency, accountability, manipulation, and abuse during elections. When those issues exist, it becomes difficult to draw straightforward conclusions from election results alone.
Beyond elections, citizens should ask themselves a more important question: Has their quality of life improved? People should not focus exclusively on opposition politicians. They should focus on their own circumstances.
Have healthcare services improved? Has corruption reduced? Are living costs affordable? Are young people finding opportunities? Can ordinary families afford university education for their children? These are the questions that matter.
The real issue is not whether the opposition is strong or weak. The real issue is whether government is delivering meaningful improvements in people's lives.
You have mentioned poverty in northern Uganda before. What is your assessment of the situation there?
Poverty remains a serious challenge. Government statistics themselves show that multidimensional poverty remains very high in parts of northern Uganda. People face difficulties in healthcare, education, sanitation, and household incomes. Many communities continue to struggle with basic needs.
When people are poor and vulnerable, they become susceptible to short-term inducements during elections. Small amounts of money or promises of assistance can have a significant impact because people are desperate.
In my view, the deeper issue is that many communities have been left impoverished for a long time. Unless those underlying economic conditions are addressed, the cycle will continue.
Some people fear that Uganda could eventually face instability similar to what happened in countries such as Sudan or Libya if there is no peaceful transition of power. Do you share those concerns?
We have consistently raised concerns about peaceful political transition. History teaches us that systems built around strong individuals often struggle when those individuals leave the scene. We have seen this in various countries. The lesson is that strong institutions matter more than strong individuals. A country needs effective checks and balances, independent institutions, a credible judiciary, a functioning parliament, and clear constitutional safeguards.
If all power becomes concentrated around one person, then the departure of that individual can create uncertainty and instability. That is why peaceful transition and institution-building are so important. Without strong institutions, countries can easily experience political fragmentation once long-serving leaders leave office.
What message does ANT have for Ugandans?
My first message is to ordinary Ugandans. Building a better country requires sacrifice. Citizens must think beyond immediate benefits and consider the long-term future of the country. People should resist the temptation to exchange their rights and their future for short-term rewards. They should support ideas, policies, and leaders that offer a credible path toward national stability and progress. As ANT, we believe we have a message and a vision that can help refocus the country. My second message is to President Museveni.
Even today, he still has the opportunity to initiate a genuine national dialogue. He has served the country for many years. There comes a time when leaders must think about the future beyond themselves.
I believe he can bring together stakeholders from across the political spectrum and facilitate an honest conversation about Uganda's future and about a peaceful transition.
Such a dialogue would help the country move forward, strengthen national unity, and prepare Uganda for the future. That would be a lasting contribution to the country.