Erias Lukwago’s humiliating treatment tests Uganda’s commitment to Justice and Rule of Law

June 18, 2026

By Elvis Kintu Nsonyi

New York City

The true test of leadership is not defined by how one treats friends and supporters. It is actually revealed in how one treats those with whom they fundamentally disagree. After all, it is easy to be a saint among admirers. The real examination comes when confronting critics without losing one’s composure or vocabulary.

The public kidnapping and dehumanization of Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago including derogatory references that sought to portray him as a “fool” by Uganda’s first Son and Commander of the Defence Forces, Muhoozi Kainerugaba, raise broader concerns that extend far beyond partisan politics.

If this could happen to Erias Lukwago while acting in his professional capacity as Counsel for Dr. Kizza Besigye, one is left to wonder what fate awaits the Judge who had the audacity to issue summons requiring the Chief of Defence Forces to appear before court.

Either way, this invites critical reflection on the place of human dignity, constitutionalism and the proper exercise of public power. History offers uncomfortable lessons and to me, such conduct evokes memories of Uday Hussein, the notorious son of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, whose abuse of power became synonymous with cruelty and impunity.

Using a dehumanizing tone has often preceded the erosion of rights. It rarely arrives alone; it usually travels with arrogance and is frequently escorted by unchecked power!

During my time as the Executive Assistant to Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago, I came to deeply admire him as a leader who consistently let reason guide his emotions, even in the most difficult conversations and heated public exchanges. The Lukwago I know is always level-headed, composed, and the steady adult in the room.

Therefore, reducing him to ridicules and insults rather than engaging his arguments leaves a litany of unanswered questions. The issue is not whether one agrees with Lukwago’s political positions. The issue is whether political disagreement should justify the public humiliation of fellow citizens.

If intelligence were measured by the volume of insults one hurls at opponents, then social media would have become the world’s number one University. Thankfully, civilization adopted a different standard.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins with a simple but powerful premise; “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. Human dignity is not awarded by the NRM government, military rank, family lineage or the number of stars on one’s shoulders. No. It belongs equally to every individual.

For decades, Erias Lukwago has chosen the courtroom over violence, constitutional petitions over confrontation, and the Rule of Law over intimidation. While others have preferred microphones, megaphones, and occasionally muscle, Lukwago has repeatedly preferred legal texts and judicial interpretation.

That commitment makes personal attacks against him particularly troubling from a human-rights perspective.

We must all know that democracies are strengthened when leaders answer legal arguments with legal arguments, political ideas with political ideas and criticism with reasoned rebuttal. They are weakened when insults replace debate. When leaders begin winning arguments by name-calling, one wonders whether constitutional law has been replaced by market rules.

Across the world, democratic progress has been built upon respect for the inherent dignity of every person, including political opponents. The most enduring victories for justice have been rooted in the recognition of our common humanity. This is evident from the Civil Rights Movement in the United States to the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa.

Neither Martin Luther King Jr. nor Nelson Mandela expanded freedom by reducing opponents to caricatures. They understood that the strength of a cause is measured not by the sharpness of insults but by the strength of reason.

No citizen should be stripped of dignity because of political disagreement. No public official should be subjected to humiliation for exercising constitutional rights. And no society should become comfortable with a language that seeks to diminish the humanity of others.

A nation that laughs at the humiliation of one citizen today may find itself mourning the humiliation of many tomorrow. History has a habit of sending invoices long after the celebrations have ended.

It is also rational to remember that political power is temporary whereas human dignity is permanent. Governments change, offices change and titles change. Even the loudest voices eventually become footnotes in history. Human dignity, however, remains non-negotiable.

The Rule of Law that Lukwago professes demands that individuals be judged by evidence and legal standards, not by insults. Human rights demand that even the fiercest political adversaries be treated as human beings deserving of respect.

That principle is bigger than any politician, any office, any military rank, or any moment in history. It is the foundation upon which every free society stands. And when future generations judge our time, they will not ask who called whom a fool. They will ask who defended human dignity when it was under assault.