By Daglous Bakinyumya
The ongoing controversy surrounding the red overall and beret worn by members of the National Unity Platform (NUP) has raised critical questions about political freedoms, military authority, and selective enforcement of laws in Uganda. The Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) has deemed the attire a military uniform, leading to arrests and alleged abductions of individuals donning it.
However, contradictions emerge when other figures, such as journalist Andrew Mwenda, businessman Frank Gashumba, singer Alien Skin, minister Lillian Aber and many others have been seen wearing similar outfits without facing legal repercussions. This selective enforcement suggests a deeper political agenda rather than a genuine concern for military identity protection.
Double Standards; Where Do We Draw the Line?
The government’s position on the NUP attire appears inconsistent. If the red overall and beret constitute a military uniform, why are individuals aligned with the ruling government allowed to wear similar outfits without consequence?
The lack of clarity and consistency in enforcing this rule creates a perception that it is not about protecting military identity but rather suppressing opposition voices. This selective approach fuels tensions and raises questions about whether Uganda’s governance is rooted in fairness and the rule of law or is merely an exercise of power politics.
What Is the Real Issue?
Dressing is a form of expression. The Constitution of Uganda guarantees freedom of expression and association, yet the crackdown on NUP supporters over their attire suggests a systematic effort to stifle opposition. Clothing, in itself, does not pose a threat to national security—unless those in power fear the unity and symbolism it represents.
The government must recognize that political pluralism is essential for democracy. Suppressing opposition through intimidation, arrests, and abductions over clothing only deepens political divisions and erodes public trust in state institutions. The UPDF should focus on its primary mandate—defending the nation rather than engaging in partisan intimidation.
Way Forward: Defining Military Attire Clearly
To put this matter to rest, the UPDF should officially gazette what constitutes military attire, specifying the exact colors, symbols, and designs that fall under its jurisdiction. By providing clear legal definitions, the military can avoid being used as a tool for political suppression. This would also prevent unnecessary conflicts between the security forces and civilians who wear red overalls and berets as a form of political expression.
Moreover, it is imperative for the government to cease using hidden intimidation tactics against political parties. A thriving democracy allows for multiple political voices to coexist without fear of persecution. If the ruling party believes in its legitimacy, it should compete in the political arena based on policies and governance, not suppression and coercion.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding the NUP red overall and beret is a reflection of the broader political struggles in Uganda more so ahead 2026. Selective enforcement of laws and the use of state machinery to intimidate opposition members only serve to weaken the country’s democratic foundations.
The UPDF must define its military attire in clear legal terms to prevent further exploitation of this issue for political gains. True democracy thrives in an environment where all political players are treated fairly, without fear of suppression based on their choice of clothing. Uganda must rise above intimidation politics and embrace a governance system that respects the rights of all its citizens, regardless of their political affiliation.
Bakinyumya Political TV Producer and TV Host – @BDouglasPaap
