By Praise Aloikin Opoloje
Uganda is currently experiencing a political struggle over flags, not just party symbols but the national flag itself. What should be a neutral symbol of unity has become a flashpoint in the 2026 election campaigns, revealing deeper issues surrounding political space, double standards, and the selective application of the law against the opposition.
At the centre of this dispute is the waving of the national flag by supporters of the National Unity Platform, which has become a standard feature at their rallies. The state has invoked the National Flag and Armorial Ensigns Act, the primary law governing the use of the national flag and other state symbols, to criminalize this practice.
The Act prohibits acts intended to bring the flag into contempt or ridicule and restricts its commercial use without authorization from the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. However, the law does not prohibit Ugandans from carrying or waving the national flag or displaying it as a form of political expression, nor does it designate campaign events as restricted spaces for its use.
The Act was enacted long before contemporary multiparty campaigns and was designed to protect the dignity of the flag, not regulate political competition. The actual problem seems to be that National Unity Platform leader Robert Kyagulanyi, also known as Bobi Wine, publicly encouraged supporters to carry the Uganda national flag at rallies as a symbol of patriotism and a call for political change. He has consistently argued that the flag belongs to all Ugandans and that displaying it is an expression of national ownership, not misuse.
In response, Police spokesperson ACP Rusoke Kituuma warned that prior permission from the Minister of Justice is required before using the national flag and suggested that waving it at campaign rallies could amount to unauthorized use under the Act. Similarly, the Commissioner for Patriotism, Hellen Seku, stated that hoisting the flag on private buildings, vehicles, boda bodas, or leaving it displayed overnight without authorization breaches established legal protocols. These statements have since formed the basis of police and military action on the ground.
The government’s narrative is that these measures are necessary to protect the dignity of the national symbol. However, this narrative collapses when examined against actual practice. The supporters of the National Resistance Movement regularly wear the national flag on clothing, print it on posters, mount it on vehicles, and wave it at party events and state functions. Other Ugandan have been using the flag as bracelets, hoodies etc. The Uganda tourism board has launched various tourism campaigns that incorporate the flag such as the Explore Uganda- The Pearl of Africa campaign. These actions are not questioned, regulated, or punished. No permissions are demanded, and no enforcement follows. The same conduct is only treated as illegal when carried out by opposition supporters, particularly those aligned with NUP.
The double standard extends beyond the national flag to party flags themselves. Uganda’s electoral and political party laws allow registered parties to organize, mobilize, and campaign using their symbols. There’s no law banning party flags during campaigns. Yet while NRM flags move freely, often with police escort, opposition flags are treated as a security threat.
Police often claim opposition flags “cause disorder,” ignoring that disorder arises from violent enforcement, not the flags themselves. Reports show security personnel confronting, chasing, beating, and confiscating flags from opposition supporters simply for carrying them. These actions are justified by vague references to “misuse” or “security concerns.”
Even senior officials have reinforced this approach. General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Uganda’s Chief of Defence Forces, warned that anyone “misusing” the national flag will be dealt with according to the law, despite the distinction between misuse and peaceful display.
The core issue isn’t protecting national symbols but controlling political visibility. If the concern were legal compliance, enforcement would be uniform. If permission were required, it’d be demanded from all parties. Instead, the rule is simple: when the ruling party displays the flag, it’s patriotism; when the opposition does, it’s criminalized.
It’s also important to note what the law restricts during elections. Electoral guidelines prohibit displaying party symbols and flags inside polling stations on polling day to protect vote secrecy and neutrality. These restrictions don’t apply to campaign rallies, marches or mobilization. Conflating polling-day restrictions with campaign activities shows how laws are stretched to justify repression.
This selective enforcement lets authorities shrink democratic space without changing the law. Instead of amending the Constitution or banning opposition parties, the state repurposes existing laws, applying them unevenly against challengers. The National Flag and Armorial Ensigns Act, meant to protect the flag, becomes a tool for suppressing opposition.The question is: is waving the national flag at an opposition rally an act of national pride or a crime because it challenges entrenched power? When laws apply based on political allegiance, not conduct, the rule of law gives way to discretion. Carrying a flag isn’t a crime – selective law enforcement to silence opposition is.
No Comments yet!