Religious leaders in Uganda are defending their recent engagement with the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU) following significant public criticism. According to Nile Post, the meeting held on Friday, November 6, 2026, drew backlash from social media commentators who characterized the dialogue as inappropriate. The publication reports that Apostle Grace Lubega sought to clarify the context of the Church’s participation, stating that his description of the PLU as a non-abusive and non-violent entity was an institutional statement rather than a blanket endorsement for the general public. Lubega noted that this position aligns with General Muhoozi’s expressed view that he holds no grievance against the Church.
The engagement included a broad spectrum of Christian denominations and was attended by leaders such as Dr. Makumbi, Dr. Joseph Sserwadda, and Bishop Odong. Representatives from the Islamic faith were also invited, though one leader excused their absence due to the meeting occurring on a Friday. Nile Post details that the participants raised serious concerns, including the issue of abductions and the need for transparent accountability regarding missing individuals. Dr. Sserwadda emphasized that leadership must be grounded in wisdom and humility, while Bishop Odong called for intentional leadership that addresses community needs.
During the session, spiritual leaders also addressed the role of social media influencers in spreading division. They urged the PLU to engage constructively with these opinion leaders, noting that some were perceived to be connected to the group. In response, the PLU categorically denied any involvement in subversive opinions directed against the church or born-again persons. The publication notes that while the leadership demonstrated openness, the true measure of the meeting’s success will depend on subsequent actions rather than the atmosphere of the discussion itself.
Nile Post argues that the public reaction highlights a national tendency to prioritize gossip and accusation over constructive confrontation. The article suggests that citizens must distinguish between engagement and endorsement, warning against punishing those who attempt to find common ground. It emphasizes that making dialogue politically dangerous forces all parties back into isolated corners, hindering national progress. The publication highlights that complex discussions are often reduced to selective clips and provocative sound bites, urging readers to exercise intellectual honesty and discernment.