DP President Norbert Mao and Speaker Anita Among have been trading barbs over the Kyankwanzi retreat, highlighting some friction within the cooperation agreement.
The political alliance between the Democratic Party (DP) and the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) is facing a significant test of its durability. In April 2026, a public exchange of “barbs” between Norbert Mao, the Minister for Constitutional Affairs and DP President, and Anita Among, the Speaker of Parliament, has exposed deep-seated friction within the cooperation agreement.
The catalyst for this latest fallout was the recently concluded NRM Parliamentary Caucus retreat in Kyankwanzi. While such retreats are standard for the ruling party, the inclusion—and exclusion—of certain political actors, combined with the rhetoric coming out of the National Leadership Institute (NALI), has reignited the debate over whether the DP-NRM marriage is one of genuine cooperation or slow-motion absorption.
The Spark: The Kyankwanzi Discourse
The Kyankwanzi retreat was designed to unify the NRM ahead of the 2026/27 legislative agenda, focusing on wealth creation and “party discipline.” However, the tone of the discussions shifted when issues of “cooperation partners” were raised.
Speaker Anita Among, known for her firm hand in Parliament and her loyalty to the NRM hierarchy, reportedly made remarks suggesting that “opposition members in the cabinet” must fully align with NRM’s ideological positions or risk being sidelined. While she did not name Mao explicitly in every instance, the implication was clear: the NRM remains the senior partner, and the cooperation agreement does not grant the DP an equal seat at the high table.
Mao’s Rebuttal: The “Independent Mind”
Norbert Mao, never one to shy away from intellectual or political combat, responded with his characteristic wit and sharp legal framing. Mao’s central argument is that the cooperation agreement signed in July 2022 was a strategic partnership intended to foster national unity and constitutional reform—not a surrender.
Mao has fired back, suggesting that the Speaker’s role should be one of neutrality and that the “barbs” thrown from Kyankwanzi undermine the spirit of the very transition the President promised. Mao’s camp argues that the DP entered the cabinet to influence policy from within, particularly regarding the National Dialogue and a peaceful transition of power. When NRM leaders treat DP members like “hired help” rather than partners, it creates a rift that the opposition is eager to exploit.
Key Points of Friction
| Issue | Mao/DP Position | Among/NRM Position |
| Identity | Maintaining a distinct DP identity while serving in the Cabinet. | Expecting total “NRM-leaning” loyalty in legislative matters. |
| Constitutional Reform | Prioritizing the National Dialogue and electoral reforms. | Prioritizing NRM manifesto implementation and term extensions. |
| Kyankwanzi Attendance | Viewing it as a partisan NRM event where DP shouldn’t be “swallowed.” | Viewing it as the command center for all government-aligned leaders. |
The Speaker’s Authority vs. The Minister’s Mandate
The friction also highlights a structural tension in Uganda’s current political setup. Anita Among, as Speaker, wields immense power over the legislative agenda. She has often urged “non-NRM” ministers to be more aggressive in defending government positions on the floor of the House.
On the other hand, Mao’s mandate as Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs often requires a broader, more consultative approach that involves reaching out to the very opposition groups that the NRM caucus seeks to defeat. This creates a “tug-of-war” where Mao is seen as too conciliatory by NRM hardliners, while Among is seen as too partisan by those who favor the “cooperation” model.
The Shadow of 2026
The timing of this friction is not accidental. With the 2026 general elections now behind us and the new political cycle in full swing, the “cooperation agreement” is being scrutinized for its electoral value.
- For the NRM: They want to ensure that the DP does not use its cabinet positions to build a platform that could eventually challenge the NRM.
- For the DP: Mao needs to prove to his party members—many of whom left to join the NUP—that he has not simply “sold out” but is achieving tangible results for the party.
When Speaker Among suggests that the “cooperation” is a favor granted by the NRM, it devalues Mao’s leverage within his own party, making him more likely to push back publicly to protect his political standing.
The Role of President Museveni
As the architect of the cooperation agreement, President Museveni remains the ultimate arbiter. While he has publicly praised Mao for his “intellect and patriotism,” he also relies on Speaker Among to maintain a disciplined Parliament.
Reports suggest that the President has had to intervene in the past to “cool tempers” between his cabinet ministers and the parliamentary leadership. However, at Kyankwanzi, the President’s focus was on unwavering loyalty. This has emboldened the “NRM-only” faction, led by figures like Among, to take a tougher stance against those they perceive as “half-in, half-out.”
Impact on the National Dialogue
The most significant casualty of this “war of words” could be the proposed National Dialogue. Mao has staked his reputation on leading a process that brings all political players to the table to discuss Uganda’s future.
If the Speaker and the NRM caucus continue to signal that only NRM-approved ideas are welcome, the National Dialogue loses its “neutral” character. Critics argue that if Mao cannot even find common ground with the NRM Speaker, his chances of bringing the “hostile” opposition (NUP and FDC) to the table are nearly zero.
A Marriage of Convenience or a Looming Divorce?
The “barbs” traded between Norbert Mao and Anita Among are more than just personal ego clashes; they represent a fundamental disagreement over how Uganda should be governed in this transition era.
Is the cooperation agreement a genuine path toward a multiparty future, or is it merely a tool for the NRM to neutralize its most articulate critics? As the friction grows, the DP-NRM alliance looks less like a unified front and more like two parties sharing a house but living in different rooms. For Mao, the challenge is to remain relevant without being absorbed. For Among, the challenge is to lead a diverse Parliament without alienating the very partners the President invited into the fold.
How they navigate this friction in the coming months will determine whether the “cooperation” model survives until the next election cycle, or if it becomes a cautionary tale of political miscalculation.
