He Has A Gun!! Mathias Mpuuga Reveals Why Bobi Wine’s Bodyguard Eddie Mutwe Shouldn’t Be Released And Imprisoned For About 20 Years
Former Leader of Opposition Hon. Mathias Mpuuga has said that Edward Ssebufu alias Eddie Mutwe should be charged in Military Court because he has a pistol and army attires yet he doesn’t belong to security.
These words, sharp and decisive, cut through the already tense atmosphere surrounding Eddie Mutwe’s abduction. Instead of a unified call for justice and the return of a missing citizen, Mpuuga’s statement introduced a jarring counter-narrative, one that cast Mutwe as a potential criminal deserving of severe legal repercussions.
Mpuuga says that Eddie Mutwe should be charged and sentenced for at least 20 years so that he can act as an example to other NUP foot soldiers.
This pronouncement, delivered with a chilling finality, transformed the abduction from a potential human rights violation into a legal case with a predetermined outcome. It was not merely a call for investigation, but a demand for exemplary punishment, designed to send a clear message to the National Unity Platform (NUP) and its supporters.
The abduction itself, a shadowy affair involving a “drone van” and unidentified armed men in Mukono, had already ignited widespread fear and suspicion. Eddie Mutwe, Robert Kyagulanyi’s chief bodyguard, was snatched from his village, leaving behind a trail of unanswered questions and escalating political tensions.
Kyagulanyi himself condemned the act, framing it as a politically motivated attack against his growing opposition.
However, Mpuuga’s intervention shifted the focus dramatically. He didn’t address the circumstances of the abduction, nor did he join the chorus demanding accountability from the authorities.
Instead, he zeroed in on Mutwe’s alleged possession of a pistol and military attire, presenting them as sufficient grounds for military prosecution and a lengthy prison sentence.
This stance created a stark divide within the opposition. Kyagulanyi and his supporters viewed it as a betrayal, a move that effectively validated the potential actions of the state. The call for a military trial, known for its swift and often less transparent proceedings, raised concerns about due process and fairness.
The timing of Mpuuga’s statement amplified its impact.
The NUP’s planned press conference, intended to address the abduction and launch a youth protest vote, was blocked by police, further solidifying the perception of government suppression. In this charged environment, Mpuuga’s words appeared to align more closely with the government’s narrative than with the opposition’s.
The question of motivation hung heavy in the air. Was Mpuuga attempting to distance himself from Kyagulanyi, seeking favor with the ruling regime? Or was it a genuine, albeit controversial, attempt to uphold the rule of law?
Regardless of the underlying reasons, his pronouncements had irrevocably altered the landscape, transforming a potential act of state-sponsored terror into a complex legal and political battleground.
The abduction of Eddie Mutwe, once a symbol of opposition vulnerability, had become a catalyst for internal strife and a stark reminder of the fragile state of political unity in Uganda.
