The People’s Front for Freedom (PFF) party has said it is willing to take part in the proposed national dialogue, but has raised strong concerns about how the dialogue is being framed, convened, and structured.
According to Dr. Lulume Bayiga, the party Interim Executive Chairman, what is currently being presented to the country is an oppressed-led dialogue, which he says undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the entire process.
“We believe that the convener must be neutral, and all parties must agree to the convener’s direction otherwise, it seems to be a monologue,” Bayiga said.
While addressing journalists on Monday, November 9th, 2026, at the party headquarters on Katonga Road in Kampala, Bayiga argued that for the dialogue to be meaningful, the responsibility of crafting the agenda should not be left to the oppressor but instead, a neutral convener should craft a well-defined agenda, and all parties must be given space to contribute to it.
Bayiga further said the question of who participates in the dialogue must be clearly agreed upon and defined from the outset.
He cautioned against limiting participation to political parties alone, noting that Uganda was built by many actors who must be consulted and included.
“It’s not the political parties alone who should be part of the dialogue because there are many parties and entities that created Uganda to be consulted and be part of the national dialogue, including the civil societies, cultural and religious leaders,” Bayiga said.
The PFF leader also emphasized the need for a guarantor to ensure that whatever resolutions and commitments come out of the dialogue are actually implemented, saying past dialogues have failed due to lack of enforcement mechanisms.
He also called on the media to be vigilant and interrogate the motives of those positioning themselves as conveners.
“Media houses should have it in the back of their mind to question the oppressors who are the conveners and the venue for dialogue,” Bayiga added.
He noted that without neutrality, inclusivity, and guarantees for implementation, the national dialogue risks being dismissed as a political monologue rather than a genuine national conversation.
Bayiga’s remarks come amid ongoing discussions among political actors about a national dialogue intended to address Uganda’s political challenges. PFF maintains that without neutrality in convening, inclusivity in participation and guarantees for implementation, the process risks losing legitimacy.
