After 15 turbulent years at City Hall, outgoing Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago breaks his silence on power struggles, political battles, and whether his war on corruption ultimately cost him his seat.
Was his tenure a principled stand against cartels or a bruising confrontation with the state?
The Lord Mayor speaks candidly about institutional clashes, contested elections, and what he calls unfinished battles.
Lukwago, who also serves as president of the People’s Front for Freedom (PFF), describes his record as “stainless steel,” while critics label him combative. In this revealing interview, he defends his legacy and challenges the system he believes resisted his reform agenda.
He argues that the opposition’s poor showing in the last election cannot be viewed in isolation. From the presidency to Parliament and local councils, he contends that the results reflected deeper structural forces rather than a genuine collapse in public support.
While acknowledging that fragmentation within opposition ranks including the failure to field a united presidential candidate weakened momentum, he maintains that repression, arrests, and intimidation created a climate of fear that stifled open political expression across the country.
Still, he insists the struggle is far from over. Though conceding the movement may appear weakened, he describes the setback as temporary, arguing that sustained repression cannot indefinitely suppress public demand for constitutionalism and political change.
Below are excerpts from the interview?
How would you assess your time in office?
First of all, my tenure has been a mixture of many things. There have been numerous challenges, difficult moments, and institutional battles. But there have also been exciting and fulfilling moments. By and large, it has been rewarding.
Considering all the circumstances and the terrain I had to navigate, I believe my performance has been excellent. An objective observer, taking into account the environment under which I operated, would rate my tenure highly. I did not operate in a neutral space. I had to work within a complex governance structure, with appointed leaders such as the Executive Director and ministers for Kampala. Navigating that environment was not easy.
You mention appointed leaders. Some say that presidential appointees gave you a very hard time. Why do you think that was the case?
I have never had personal wars with any of the individuals appointed by the President. They had their assignment to implement the will of the appointing authority. On my part, I was executing the mandate given to me by the people of Kampala.
So, in essence, there were two sources of authority: the will of the people, which I represented, and the will of the appointing authority, implemented through ministers, the Executive Director, and other officials. Managing that clash was not easy. It was not personal; it was institutional. It was about governance and mandate.
A senior military official recently tweeted that Kampala was allowed to rot under your leadership. Some have suggested that the state needed you to lose the election. What is your response?
That was a loaded and politically charged statement. It reflects certain sentiments within sections of the establishment. When you pursue political correctness, when you insist on transparency and the moral high ground, you may find that such an approach does not easily fit within the prevailing political setup.
However, I have never played dirty politics. I have never compromised my values. If pursuing integrity and accountability made me uncomfortable to some people, so be it. I would rather stand by my principles than sacrifice them for convenience.
Have you reflected on whether your combative style of politics may have cost you the Lord Mayor seat?
I do not consider my approach combative in a personal sense. My firmness has always been issue-based. I have consistently fought for good governance, institutional performance, protection of public assets, accountability, and probity.
My disagreements were never personal. If I was defending public assets against cartels or questioning irregular decisions, that was part of my duty. If someone believes that defending taxpayers’ interests is combative, then perhaps we need to redefine the term.
If my stance cost me politically, then analysts can debate that. But I remain convinced that standing for principles was the right course of action.
Are you suggesting that certain groups actively worked against you?
Not everyone. I am very specific when I speak about cartels—groups that benefited from certain arrangements. Those are the individuals celebrating my exit. Their reaction speaks volumes.
It was never about everyone ganging up against me. But there were definite interests that felt threatened by accountability measures.
Do you believe you have left a legacy at City Hall?
Legacy is ultimately determined by history. However, if you examine the trajectory of politics in Kampala over the past 15 years, you will see that certain values were consistently defended accountability, protection of public assets, and respect for the law.
Some individuals may not miss me; others might. But if you conduct an objective assessment, you will find that there is little anyone can hold against me that contradicts the interests of the people or the law. My record is clean.
I have never been summoned to answer charges of abuse of office. I have never been convicted of corruption. Attempts were made to tarnish my name, but I emerged vindicated.
Who or what do you blame for your electoral defeat?
I do not dwell on blame. Elections are complex. I prefer to look at the broader picture. When you examine the overall performance of the opposition at presidential, parliamentary, and local government levels, certain patterns raise questions.
At the presidential level, the opposition received historically low percentages. In Parliament, the opposition secured fewer than 100 seats out of more than 500. These outcomes require reflection. Are they a true reflection of public support? Or were there irregularities? There are cases before the courts, and those processes will take their course.
Some argue that internal divisions within the opposition contributed to the losses. Do you agree?
Fragmentation was regrettable. A united opposition front would have been ideal. It is not a guarantee of victory, but it strengthens momentum. In our platform, we chose not to field a presidential candidate precisely to encourage unity. Our intention was not to occupy space for its own sake but to contribute to a broader movement for change.
What is your view on the recent defection of Yusuf Nsibambi to the ruling party?
Defections are not new in Ugandan politics. Individuals make personal decisions based on their convictions or interests. That is their right. My concern arises when such decisions are framed as national initiatives or collective struggles, only for the individual to cross over abruptly. If one chooses to defect, it should be done honestly.
The struggle for democracy is larger than any one individual. People may leave, but the cause continues.
My main concern is different. He purported to advance an agenda on behalf of Ugandans first, claiming to push for dialogue; second, claiming that he was negotiating for the release of political prisoners. You do not take advantage of the unfortunate plight of political prisoners to advance a selfish agenda. That is unfortunate. I consider it reprehensible. I consider it wrong.
If he believed that the politics of defiance would not work, he should have been honest enough to take a bold, unilateral decision and own it without encumbering other people. Do not drag in those who believed in defiance. Do not invoke political prisoners. Do not claim you are acting for a national cause. Simply say: “I have chosen this path.” I would have had no problem with that.
But do not waste people’s time with a bogus debate about dialogue.
What is your reaction to his decision?
He is of sound mind. If he has taken that direction, that is his decision. I do not begrudge him for that. He is an adult.
He presented the dialogue initiative as a broader national process involving religious leaders, cultural leaders, civil society, and other stakeholders.
That is precisely the issue. He framed it as a national agenda, a process that was just beginning, setting the tone for a larger conversation about transition. Then suddenly he crosses over. So what becomes of the proposed dialogue? Is he going to continue it from within? With whom?
We have not had any commitment from the other side regarding the release of political prisoners. The issue of dialogue has been his own narrative. How do you have a dialogue with someone who is silent? There has been no public commitment to release political prisoners.
At one point, when asked about the political situation, it was said that the opposition was finished. If that is the position if the opposition is considered buried then with whom is the dialogue going to happen?
Has this defection weakened the struggle? Is the opposition at its weakest point?
Every election cycle since 1996 has witnessed defections. After the 1996 elections, Maria Mutagamba defected. In 2006, others crossed over. In 2011, more did. In 2017, again. In 2021, the same. And now in this cycle, we see similar developments.
Defections are not new. They do not mark the end of the struggle. The cause remains. Individuals may fall, stumble, or leave, but the caravan moves on. Others will rise. Others will join the struggle.
But is the struggle currently at its weakest? Has the state succeeded in weakening it?
To some extent, yes momentarily. There has been repression. There has been brutality. There are opposition figures incarcerated. Others are in hiding. Many Ugandans fear raising their heads because of the consequences they might face.
There is also a sense of hopelessness among some citizens. After the 2026 elections, some feel like waiting for divine intervention. They feel like throwing their hands in the air.
So, yes, momentarily there may be silence. Certain voices have been suppressed. But what is being done is not sustainable. It may keep someone in power for a day, a week, a month, or even a year. But repression is not sustainable in the long run.
Is this the end of the road for you in politics?
Not at all. For the last 32 years, I have been involved in the struggle for truth and justice. My journey began in 1993 when I joined university. From my student days, I was active in leadership and advocacy. I have been involved in public interest litigation for many years, even before holding elective office.
Elective politics is not a do-or-die matter for me. It is not the primary agenda. I am grateful to the people of Kampala for the 15 years they gave me as Lord Mayor. But whether in office or outside it, I remain engaged.
My record in public interest litigation fighting for constitutionalism and the rule of law—does not depend solely on holding office. Even as a young lawyer, I took part in significant public interest cases without occupying any elective position.
So, what is your focus now?
I am the President of PFF (People’s Front for Freedom). Our agenda is clear: to fight for people’s liberties and freedoms. Everything begins with freedom. The Bill of Rights in our Constitution starts with freedoms freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom to choose, freedom to pursue one’s aspirations.
Without freedom, nothing else has meaning. So, our platform is centered on defending those freedoms. We have lined up meetings and activities, and we will continue engaging through lawful and constitutional means.
Would you consider running for elective office again if an opportunity arose?
I do not engage in hypotheticals. I will focus on what is within my control defending freedoms and liberties using the means available to me.
If one platform is not available, there are others. Litigation, civic engagement, political mobilization these are all avenues of contribution. What matters is making a contribution to the struggle, not the title one holds.
The struggle continues. My role may evolve, but my commitment to truth, justice, constitutionalism, and freedom remains unwavering.
How would you like to be remembered as you leave City Hall?
I would like to be remembered as someone who stood firm, defended public assets, and remained faithful to principles of accountability and integrity.
Offices come and go, but integrity endures. If history records that I remained consistent in defending the will of the people and the rule of law, then I will be satisfied.
You were speaking about the recent defection of your former colleague to the ruling party.
That is why I say it was a bluff. A total bluff advanced for purposes of pursuing a selfish agenda.
Do you have any regrets about your time in office?
At a personal level, I have no regrets. I did my best within the constraints I faced. There were institutional decisions made despite my resistance that one may consider unfortunate, but they were collective decisions. As for my personal conduct, I stand by my record. I have acted within the law and in accordance with my mandate. There is nothing that can be held against me that goes against the interests of the people.