Dear Mr Nicholas Opiyo, Mpuuga is not provincial

Our attention has been drawn to a tweet by city lawyer Nicholas Opiyo, commenting on the leadership challenges in National Unity Platform. In the said tweet dated March 31, Mr Opiyo frames Mr Mathias Nsamba Mpuuga as someone who was made a national leader by Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu.

Below, let us reproduce tweet: A little context and history lost in the NUP-Mpuuga debates. Before being graciously elevated (by appointment) to deputy president of a political party and national-level politics as the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Mpuuga was a provincial, Muganda, Catholic, and feuding DP MP from Masaka. He and his colleagues fought bitter struggles with the DP leadership before decamping to NUP.

Now, the said Mr Mpuuga is the Member of Parliament for Nyendo Mukngwe of Masaka City and holds the privileged and coveted membership of the parliamentary commission (the top leadership organ of the Parliament of Uganda).

I would personally find difficulty in calling Mr Mpuuga provincial; and needless to say, I found the content of Mr Opiyo’s tweet rather offensive. Why? Because I hold a strong feeling that Mr Opiyo knows the word “provincial” carries a derogatory undertone.

According to dictionary definitions from Oxford Languages, the word ‘provincial’ is an adjective and is used to mean: of or concerning the regions outside the capital city of a country, especially when regarded as unsophisticated or narrow-minded.

Other similar words (to the word “provincial”) are unsophisticated, narrow-minded, insular, inward-looking, parochial, limited, restricted, localist, narrow, small-minded, petty, illiberal, country bumpkin, village idiot, peasant, lout, clown, barbarian.

And it challenged my long-held understanding of national leadership levers of the state. But I still hold as true that every MP is a national leader (whether one holds strong views and support for Rwenzururu or Ebika Bya Buganda).

We all know Mr Mpuuga holds strong views and supports Buganda issues, for which he should not offer any apologies. But that would not limit his interests and attitude towards Uganda as a state. We who hold strong attachment to our communities are often times mischaracterised as provincial. One can be a good Mukonzo tribesman and still locate and appreciate his or her community’s position in Uganda and the world.

Anyway, Mr Opiyo’s tweet reminded me of Winnie Kiiza (former Leader of Opposition). When she was struggling with her leadership challenges in FDC, someone whose identity shall remain anonymous characterised her as “carrying the mindset of district councillor”. I remember protesting that remark.

Another thing I find misplaced is the insinuation that Bobi Wine made Mpuuga by appointing him NUP deputy president for Buganda and Leader of Opposition in Parliament. The least I can say is that they (Bobi Wine and Mpuuga) met along the way. Appreciated each other’s leadership strengths and did stuff. Bobi should not treat the appointment of Mpuuga as a personal gift. It was a recognition of capabilities.

Mr Mpuuga had been an MP for two terms when he joined forces with Bobi Wine. The characterisation of Mpuuga as a national leader should not be limited to his service as Leader of Opposition. As an MP, he was already a national leader.

I have never physically met Mr Mpuuga. The first time I engaged him, he was making fun of my other country (DR Congo) on social media. I protested his portrayal of Kinshasa as a village. The last time we engaged, he wanted this particular book. I got it for him.

But even in my worst estimation (and I can really be highly opinionated), I would not characterise him as provincial or unsophisticated.

Asuman Bisiika is the executive editor of the East African Flagpost. [email protected]