Being branded a traitor can follow you for a lifetime — even when you’ve risked your life for the very cause you’re accused of betraying. And this is the part most people miss when they talk about Maj. Gen. (rtd) Mugisha Muntu and the long-running ‘spy’ allegations that seem to shadow every phase of his political and military career.
Politics: ANT presidential candidate Muntu responds to ‘spy’ allegations
While speaking to journalists on Friday, December 12, 2025, in Jinja City, Alliance for National Transformation (ANT) presidential candidate Mugisha Muntu revisited a controversial chapter of his past. He reminded them that the label of “mole” is not new to him at all — even back in the 1980s, during the National Resistance Army (NRA) bush war, he was accused of spying for the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC).
Long-standing accusations of being a ‘mole’
Over the years, Muntu has been accused on more than one occasion of secretly working as a mole, allegedly infiltrating opposition spaces for the benefit of President Yoweri Museveni or other interests. Yet, true to his calm and reserved personality, he has consistently denied these claims and has often chosen to explain his position in detail, hoping that clarity and transparency will eventually bury the rumours.
But here’s where it gets controversial: despite his repeated explanations, the accusations keep coming back. They resurface in different forms, in different political seasons, and from different critics, almost as if they have become part of his political identity in the public eye.
One such moment occurred recently on his campaign trail in Moyo District. During a rally, a resident stood up and openly challenged him, voicing suspicions that many others quietly share.
“You left FDC claiming that they did not have structures, and you formed ANT, yet you have never launched your office in our district,” said Robert Melio, a resident of Pameri Parish in Metu sub-county. “Why are you fighting hard to stop majority opposition leaders from other parties from challenging Museveni, like Robert Ssentamu Kyagulanyi, who has the majority? What are you doing in these elections?”
Melio’s questions captured a broader criticism often directed at Muntu: that by forming a new party and insisting on his own path, he is allegedly weakening the opposition’s chances of unseating President Museveni. Some argue that multiple opposition candidates split the vote and indirectly help the incumbent — a point that continues to stir heated debate.
Muntu’s response: different strategies, same goal
Muntu, staying composed as usual, responded without raising his voice or attacking his critics. Instead, he framed the disagreement as a difference in strategy rather than a clash of loyalties.
“We failed to agree on a joint opposition candidate because we have different strategies to tackle Uganda’s problems,” he explained. “There are those who want to remove President Museveni as a person, but for me, I want to fight the issues that made all the other nine presidents get ‘drunk’ with absolute authority.”
In other words, Muntu argued that focusing only on removing one individual from power is not enough. He believes the deeper problem lies in weak institutions, unchecked authority, and a political culture that allows leaders — regardless of who they are — to abuse power. For him, real change means building systems that prevent any future leader from becoming authoritarian, not just replacing the current one.
And this is the part most people miss: his critics often see him as “too calm” or “too soft” on Museveni, but Muntu insists his approach is about long-term transformation rather than short-term political excitement.
Spy allegations date back to the bush war
During the Jinja press briefing, Muntu went further back in history to show how long these suspicions have followed him. He recalled that even during the NRA struggle in the 1980s, when he was fighting alongside Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, some comrades doubted his loyalty.
“Obote buried my father in 1982 when I was in the bush as one of the fighters under President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni,” he said. “Some top commanders started calling me a spy for Muwanga and President Obote, until we fought and won the war together without any problem.”
To put this in context for those less familiar with Uganda’s history: Milton Obote was President, and Paulo Muwanga was a powerful figure in his government. The mere fact that Obote’s government buried Muntu’s father while he was fighting on the opposite side made some NRA commanders suspicious. For them, this connection suggested divided loyalties.
Muntu’s point, however, is that the accusations turned out to be baseless. Despite the rumours, he stayed in the bush, continued the struggle, and fought to the end without any evidence emerging that he was a spy.
“Wherever I have gone, people have been asking me to clarify whether I have been playing a spying role for President Museveni in the opposition, even in the parties I have belonged to,” he added.
His statement highlights a pattern: from the bush war era to his time in the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC), and now in ANT, suspicion has followed him like a shadow — often without proof being presented publicly.
Smear campaigns and blackmail?
Lt. (rtd) Hannington Bashakana, who has observed Muntu’s journey over time, argues that these accusations are part of a broader smear campaign.
According to Bashakana, Muntu has “long battled smear campaigns and blackmail,” often facing these attacks in full view of the public. He believes many Ugandans misinterpret Muntu’s calm temperament as weakness or dishonesty, rather than seeing it as a sign of discipline and restraint.
“During his time in FDC, Muntu faced allegations of spying for President Museveni, sparking questions about his loyalty and intentions as a presidential candidate,” Bashakana noted. “Yet he is a true nationalist and a disciplined army officer whose track record should convince any Ugandan looking for trusted change.”
This is a key point of contention. Some view Muntu’s quiet, methodical style as evidence that he is not a genuine threat to the regime — and therefore possibly compromised. Others, like Bashakana, insist that his military background, integrity, and consistency show that he is one of the few leaders who can be trusted with power.
‘Reject deceptive politics’
Throughout his campaign rallies, Muntu has returned to one central message: Ugandans should reject deceptive politics and demand honesty, transparency, and accountability from those who seek to lead them.
“I am not a spy. I am a Ugandan who wants to serve my country,” he stated firmly. “Ugandans do not have to love me, but all I ask is that they trust me and vote for me. I have the capacity and experience to manage security services, revive the collapsed economy, end corruption, and invest in Ugandans so we can achieve proper transformation and shared prosperity.”
Here, he positions himself as a professional leader with both military and political experience, arguing that his background equips him to handle security, stabilize the economy, and ensure that public resources benefit ordinary citizens. For beginners in politics, this essentially means he sees leadership not just as winning elections, but as building systems that protect people’s welfare in the long term.
But here’s where it gets even more controversial: some critics say that every politician promises to fight corruption and revive the economy, yet very few deliver once in office. They question whether Muntu, despite his clean record, would actually be able to change a deeply entrenched system.
Focus on peaceful transition and institutions
Despite the persistent allegations and doubts, Muntu has stayed focused on his campaign themes. He consistently talks about tackling corruption, poverty, and inequality, arguing that these are the root causes of suffering and instability in Uganda.
He also strongly advocates for a peaceful transition of power and the strengthening of democratic institutions, such as the judiciary, Parliament, and independent oversight bodies. In his view, genuine democracy is not just about voting every five years; it is about making sure no leader can easily manipulate the system for personal gain.
For many supporters, this makes him stand out from more combative politicians who emphasize confrontation and regime change without always explaining how institutions will be rebuilt and protected afterward.
The bigger question: spy or misunderstood strategist?
The real controversy, then, may not be about whether Muntu is actually a spy — no credible public evidence has been put forward to prove that claim. Instead, the debate is about his political style and strategy.
Is his calm, institutional approach exactly what Uganda needs for a stable transition, or is it too cautious for a system many people see as fundamentally repressive? Does forming new parties and insisting on different strategies strengthen democracy through diversity, or does it fracture the opposition and indirectly benefit the incumbent?
And this is the part most people rarely pause to examine in depth: are accusations like “mole” and “spy” sometimes used as political tools to discredit opponents who don’t fit the popular image of a loud, confrontational opposition leader?
So, what do you think? Do you see Mugisha Muntu as a principled, misunderstood strategist focused on institutions and long-term change, or do you believe his approach and political moves raise legitimate questions about his role in Uganda’s politics? Do you agree that multiple opposition strategies are healthy for democracy, or do you think they only help keep the current regime in power? Share your thoughts — whether you agree or strongly disagree — and explain why you think the ‘spy’ label keeps coming back in his story.
