Why Fufa presidential elections are always uncontested

It’s the fourth time in a row and just as in 2013, 2017 and 2021, the incumbent will be declared elected by acclamation. By the end of this term, Magogo will have led Fufa for 16 uninterrupted years if all remain constant. The only question left is not who will win but why does no one else even try?

Two-decade problem

But this didn’t start with Magogo. Ugandan football has not seen a genuinely contested presidential election in over two decades. The last competitive race dates back to 2001 when Denis Obua beat Hajj Abbasi Kawaase and Michael Okiror in a dramatic three-man contest. Obua’s victory shocked many who believed his first term had eroded his support.

But that was the last time Fufa elections offered a choice. When Lawrence Mulindwa came in after Obua’s ouster in 2005, he faced no challenger. He remained unopposed in 2009.

When he stepped down in 2013, Magogo who was his vice president in charge of administration took over the reins, again without contest. Since then, Fufa elections have resembled transfers of loyalty, not open competition.

Built to exclude

So, why are we always unopposed? The answer lies in the electoral system itself which is a highly technical and tightly controlled process that filters out potential rivals long before they can campaign.

To even be nominated, a candidate must: Have served at Fufa or a Fufa member’s executive for at least 4 of the last 8 years; Hold an A-level certificate or its equivalent; possess at least a Famaco II football administration, a certificate offered exclusively by Fufa themselves; Secure nomination letters from three separate entities: a UPL club, a Special Interest Group (SIG) and a Regional Football Association; Submit a proposed executive committee; and pay Shs10m nomination fees.

The catch? Most of the people required to nominate you are either appointed, facilitated or directly paid by Fufa. Challenging the incumbent becomes not just a logistical burden but rather a political suicide.

In 2021, former Uganda Cranes player and Proline director Mujib Kasule picked forms but failed to secure the required signatures within the narrow window. “It’s a system designed to block outsiders,” he complained then. “How is someone supposed to gather all those signatures in 48 hours?”

Kyetume owner Ruben Kimera, who once tried to build a community-rooted club, understands that isolation well.

“You see, football is managed with a very difficult syndicate to beat and penetrate,” Kimera said in a separate interview with this paper. “If you are in football and don’t belong or subscribe to that syndicate, you cannot survive.”

His experience of entering the topflight and exiting was telling.

“When I came into the Premier League, the first question I was asked on the sidelines was whether I had any aspirations for leadership. I was shocked. I told them I didn’t. I had only come to help talent in my community and for therapeutic reasons. So if that was how they welcomed me, how do you even share ideas with them?”

His words reflect the underlying tension that in Fufa’s political space, participation is tolerated but ambition is not.

Loyalty economy

Beyond paperwork, delegates have little incentive to back change. Under Magogo, Fufa now facilitates each delegate with a Shs1m monthly stipend. The regional associations also receive funding and leaders are allowed to manage localized programs. The delegates also get a chance to travel out with national teams and all the perks that come with it.

For many of these delegates, Fufa is not just a federation but a source of livelihood. Why vote out the hand that feeds you?

Interestingly, there are people within Fufa who qualify to run but none have ever shown interest in standing because in Fufa politics, ambition is dangerous unless it’s blessed by the incumbent.

In 2013, when Magogo took over from Mulindwa, the system had already been shaped to preserve continuity. The current Fufa Electoral Code passed in 2012 ensures that only a few insiders can ever qualify.

It’s a brilliant design, if your goal is stability but a problematic one, if your goal is openness.

Just a cycle?

Magogo’s record isn’t in question here. Under his leadership, Fufa’s budget has ballooned to over Shs40b. Uganda has returned to Afcon and women’s football has grown.

But none of that answers the deeper question: Is Fufa a democracy if no one else can stand?

Magogo will rule until 2029. That’s 16 years in power matching or even surpassing long-time heads of some African football powerhouses. While other federations like Kenya and Zambia recently face messy, contested transitions, Uganda has mastered the art of silent and unopposed continuity.

It works for now but leaves little room for alternative thinking or generational renewal especially with the rapid and growing voices of Gen Zs and younger millennials.

The situation is even alarming as most of the delegates went unopposed showing either a tightly-knitted circle or a lack of interest.

So this weekend, when 88 delegates pass their ceremonial vote to re-elect the only candidate, there will be a lot of cheering and hugging but for those watching closely, a more uncomfortable question will linger: Why are we always unopposed?

Fufa presidents

1924–1934: Kabaka Sir Daudi Chwa

1935–1944: W.A. Hunter

1945-1953: W.B. Ouseley

1954–1956: Eriasafu Nsobya

1957–1962: W.W. Kulubya

1963–1964: George Magezi

1965–1968: A.A.A Nekyon

1969–1971: Henry Balamaze Lwanga

1972–1974: Kezekia Ssegwanga Musisi

1974-1976: Eria Mugisa

1977–1979: Capt. Muhammed Sseruwagi

1979–1980: Gerald Sendawula

1981: Steven Ibale

1982: Peter Abe

1982–1983: Careb Babihuga

1983–1985: Geresom Kagurusi

1985: Chris Rwanika

1985–1987: Barnabas Byabazaire

1988–1989: Paul Katamba Lujjo

1989–1992: John Baptist Semanobe

1992: John Ssebaana Kizito (May – December)

1994: Ben Kurtis Omoding Snr

1994–1995: Moses Ali

1995–1998:  Hajji Twaha Kakaire

1998–2004: Denis Obua

2005–2013: Dr. Lawrence Mulindwa

2013-todate: Eng. Moses Magogo Hassim