Muhoozi-Otafiire feud: Bush War General’s brother caught in between?

For months, Amos Rwangomani was a man his family said they could not find. When he eventually appeared before a military court, the questions surrounding his disappearance gave way to a firearms case that remains unresolved.

Now, as prosecutors seek more time to investigate the allegations against him, Rwangomani finds himself in an uncomfortable spotlight. He is the younger brother of Gen Kahinda Otafiire, the water and environment minister, and one of Uganda’s most prominent liberation-war veterans, whose increasingly bitter confrontation with Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba has exposed deep disagreements within the ruling establishment over political loyalty, military power and the country’s future.

Whether Rwangomani’s legal troubles have anything to do with his brother’s political battles is not established. But the coincidence places his case against an extraordinary backdrop: a dispute unfolding at the highest levels of power, prosecutors yet to complete investigations, and a veteran general refusing to retreat in the face of threats from the President’s son.

On Wednesday, prosecutors asked the General Court Martial in Makindye for more time to investigate allegations that Rwangomani unlawfully possessed two pistols and 10 rounds of ammunition. The court adjourned the case to November 4, 2026, after the prosecution said investigators had returned the file to address outstanding issues.

Rwangomani, 56, who works as a supervisor with Kamed Security Company, remains out on bail. He has not been convicted of any offence.

His story, however, began long before the latest court appearance — with a disappearance that prompted his wife to turn to the High Court for help, and that now sits uneasily alongside the public feud involving his elder brother.

A case that began with a disappearance

The prosecution alleges that Rwangomani possessed a pistol marked G 259085 at Mulago Business Centre in Kampala in October 2025 without lawful authority.

Investigators also accuse him of possessing a second pistol bearing serial number PSO BO 19687-08980 and 10 rounds of pistol ammunition at the same location and around the same period.

The charges were brought under Section 158(2)(c) of the UPDF Act, which criminalises unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. Although Rwangomani is a civilian, prosecutors have brought him before the General Court Martial under Section 117A(1)(e) of the Act.

Rwangomani works as a supervisor with Kamed Security Company. The charge sheet identifies his residence as Kichwamba Village, Kararo Parish, Kyeizooba Sub-county, Igara County, Bushenyi District.

The case first attracted attention because of what happened before he appeared in court. According to his family, Rwangomani was picked up while eating at Mulago Business Centre in August 2025 and subsequently went missing.

His wife petitioned the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus, a legal procedure through which a court can require authorities to account for a person’s detention and produce that person before it.

In February 2026, the court ordered the respondents, including the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF), to produce Rwangomani dead or alive and file a return. He was subsequently presented before the General Court Martial, charged and released on bail as investigations continued.

At Wednesday’s proceedings, Lt Regina Nanzala, who led the prosecution, told the court that investigators needed additional time to address gaps in the case file and submit an updated version.

Col Fredrick Kangwamu, who presided over the court, adjourned the matter until November 4. Rwangomani’s lawyer, Capt Daniel Kagombe, did not oppose the prosecution’s request.

The next appearance is expected to provide an update on the investigation. It remains unclear when the case will be ready to proceed to a hearing of evidence.

For now, the charges remain allegations that the prosecution has yet to establish in court.

The confrontation that changed the political temperature

The case is unfolding against a bitter dispute between Otafiire, a veteran of the National Resistance Army’s 1981–1986 guerrilla war, and Muhoozi, the serving military chief and son of President Yoweri Museveni.

The two men occupy different positions in Uganda’s political establishment, but their public disagreement touches on one of the country’s most sensitive questions: what happens when Museveni eventually leaves the presidency, and whether his son should be regarded as his natural political successor.

Otafiire, one of the original members of the NRA who launched the bush war, has repeatedly questioned Muhoozi’s presidential ambitions. His position has not been that the general should be barred from seeking the presidency. Rather, he has argued that Muhoozi should not be treated as an automatic successor because he is the President’s son.

In earlier public remarks, Otafiire drew a distinction between Muhoozi as an individual and Muhoozi as a prospective head of state.

“What I don’t support is him becoming president,” he said in a 2024 interview. “There is a difference. Kainerugaba the president’s son, I like him, but Kainerugaba the president, I don’t support him, and I cannot hide.”

The distinction is central to a disagreement that has been building for years. Otafiire has argued that political leadership should be determined through competition and democratic procedures, not family relationships. He has also questioned the propriety of a serving military officer making political declarations while holding a senior command position.

The latest confrontation began when Otafiire addressed Parliament on September 30 and spoke about political tolerance, the treatment of opposition figures and the dangers of resolving disagreements through force.

“When you see a general who prefers violence as the best means of solving problems, then there is a problem,” he told legislators.

He added that the greatest generals were those capable of resolving disputes without firing a bullet.

Otafiire also urged members of the ruling National Resistance Movement to regard the opposition as an essential part of the political system rather than an enemy.

“You never see how beautiful your face is, or how ugly your face is, until you look into the mirror,” he said. “And colleagues on the NRM side, this opposition is our mirror reflection.”

Although he did not mention Muhoozi by name in those parliamentary remarks, the military chief appeared to interpret them as a personal attack.

Muhoozi responded through a series of social media posts, demanding an apology and threatening to have Otafiire arrested if he failed to comply. He initially gave the minister a week before shortening the deadline to three days, describing him as a nuisance who belonged in an old people’s home.

The dispute quickly moved beyond an exchange of insults. It became a public test of whether a serving military commander could threaten a sitting cabinet minister over political remarks without provoking a wider institutional confrontation.

A veteran refuses to retreat

Otafiire’s response during a public lecture at Valley University of Science and Technology in Bushenyi was defiant.

He distanced himself from the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU), the political pressure group chaired by Muhoozi, arguing that he could not be expected to defend an organisation to which he did not belong.

Using an analogy involving religious leaders, Otafiire said people seeking explanations about the PLU should approach the organisation itself rather than expect him to speak on its behalf.

He also returned to the history of his participation in the struggles against Idi Amin and Milton Obote, recalling the years he spent in the Luweero Triangle.

“Initially I told you, I fought Idi Amin—was I safe? I fought Milton Obote. I was in Luweero for five years, did I know I would be here?” he asked.

Then came his most emphatic declaration: “I would rather die on my feet fighting than live on my knees begging.”

The statement reinforced Otafiire’s portrayal of himself as a veteran unwilling to surrender his convictions under political pressure. It also recalled the sacrifices made by the generation of fighters who brought Museveni to power and who now find themselves debating the future direction of the political order they helped establish.

Otafiire has previously warned against allowing political leadership to become a family inheritance. He has maintained that Muhoozi should be free to seek the presidency but must compete for it like any other aspirant.

He also said the general could even contest against his father.

“That is his democratic right. I can’t stop him. It is his democratic right. Let him compete against his father and we shall defeat him like we have defeated others before,” Otafiire said.

His objection, therefore, is not simply about the possibility of Muhoozi entering elective politics. It concerns the suggestion that his relationship with Museveni places him in a privileged position to inherit power.

The dispute spreads into Otafiire’s home territory

The confrontation has increasingly drawn in Muhoozi’s political allies.

PLU officials joined the attack against Otafiire and announced the organisation’s readiness to confront him politically.

PLU mobilization director Michael Mawanda accused the minister of fighting the PLU and people loyal to Museveni and his son. PLU officials revealed a plan to hold an endorsement rally in Kashenshero, the town associated with Otafiire in Mitooma District.

“That land grabber and greedy politician is fighting PLU,” Mawanda, who is also the Igara East MP, said. “In Greater Bushenyi, people call him Hitler because he fights everyone loyal to the President and to you.”

He added: “This time we are ready to fight Hon. Otafiire. Any attack on you is an attack on all of us.”

The planned rally has added a new dimension to the confrontation. What began as a dispute between two senior figures is now extending into the political mobilisation networks surrounding Muhoozi, with supporters signalling that they are prepared to challenge Otafiire in his own region.

Where does Rwangomani fit?

Rwangomani’s case offers no proven answer to the larger political questions. Nothing in the available court proceedings establishes that the firearms charges were brought because of his brother’s views. There is also no established evidence that Muhoozi directed the prosecution or that the case forms part of a campaign against Otafiire.

Those distinctions matter. The allegations against Rwangomani must be assessed on the evidence, just as the circumstances of his disappearance require an account from the relevant authorities.

But the chronology is difficult to ignore. A member of Otafiire’s family says he disappeared after a military pickup in 2025. A court subsequently ordered authorities to account for him. He was later charged and released on bail. Now, while his brother faces threats from the serving military chief, prosecutors say they still need time to resolve gaps in the firearms case.

For a family whose senior member has spent decades in the security and political establishment, the sequence presents unresolved questions, even without evidence linking the events.

It also exposes the precarious position of veterans who helped establish the current political order but may disagree with the direction in which it is moving. Their wartime credentials give them historical standing, yet that standing does not necessarily insulate them or their relatives from the pressures of contemporary politics.

The military court’s next hearing will not resolve the political dispute between Muhoozi and Otafiire. Its immediate task is narrower: to establish the progress of investigations into the alleged possession of firearms and ammunition.

On November 4, prosecutors are expected to report on the case file. Whether the investigation will then be ready to proceed remains uncertain.

Meanwhile, the broader confrontation has moved from Parliament and university lecture halls to social media, political mobilisation and threats of arrest.

Rwangomani may ultimately be judged on evidence entirely unrelated to his brother’s politics. For now, however, his case sits at the intersection of two unresolved matters: a family’s demand for accountability over a disappearance and a public struggle over who can challenge the political ambitions of Uganda’s most powerful military family.

Meanwhile, a top official in Muhoozi’s PLU has told Museveni to fire Otafiire or face a resistance from Muhoozi’s camp, as reported Here.

It should also be remembered that Otafiire’s son has warned that it would be a big mistake for Muhoozi to arrest his father, as detailed Here.