Hon. Rose Nalubowa, the National Unity Platform (NUP) candidate for Masaka City Woman MP, had said she met President Yoweri Museveni. That terse update sits at the centre of a larger and still unfolding controversy that has exposed tensions inside Uganda’s main opposition party, revived questions about private contacts between opposition figures and the long-serving President, and reopened the raw details of a disputed parliamentary seat.
Nalubowa publicly confirmed the meeting while appearing on Sanyuka TV. She stated that she had been summoned by the President after the elections and that she attended because she felt she had little choice. She further claimed that approximately twelve other people who had stood on the NUP ticket had also met Museveni.
According to her account, when she arrived she found her political rival, Justine Nameere (the sitting Masaka City Woman MP and State Minister for Local Government), seated beside her; the two did not speak to each other during the encounter. Nalubowa has also been reported as saying that anyone seeking to become an MP effectively needs presidential approval—an assertion that has not been independently verified and that her party has not endorsed.
On 7 November 2026 the National Unity Platform issued a formal statement. It read, in full: “Our attention has been brought to comments made by Hon. Rose Nalubowa by which she stated that she met with Gen. Yoweri Museveni, who according to her, summoned her after elections. We wish to clarify that as a Party we were never consulted on this matter, and were not aware of any such meeting.” The party has stopped short of announcing disciplinary action.
Its position is limited to clarifying that the engagement was neither sanctioned nor known to the leadership in advance. Nalubowa has indicated that her lawyers were aware and had been asked to engage party headquarters; NUP’s public statement does not accept that this constituted proper consultation.
Nameere has offered a different version of the same events. She has said she accompanied Nalubowa and Nalubowa’s husband to the President specifically in an effort to promote reconciliation after a bitterly contested election. In her telling, the meeting was an attempt to present grievances and lower temperatures rather than a unilateral summons. The two politicians therefore give incompatible accounts of who initiated the encounter and for what purpose.
The electoral background is concrete. On 15 January 2026 Nalubowa was initially declared the winner with 25,443 votes to Nameere’s 20,324. Nameere sought a recount on the ground that results from a number of polling stations had been omitted. Masaka Chief Magistrate Albert Asiimwe ordered a recount of the ballot boxes.
The recount certificate reversed the outcome: Nameere 25,502, Nalubowa 23,176. Nalubowa petitioned the High Court, alleging irregularities including compromised ballot boxes, unsecured materials and the exclusion of votes. On 21 October 2026 Justice Bernard Namanya dismissed the petition. The judge found that electoral materials had not been properly safeguarded and that some irregularities had occurred, but held that Nalubowa had not proved the non-compliance substantially affected the result.
Even if all 1,353 excluded votes were awarded to Nalubowa, her total would still have left her 973 votes short of Nameere. Costs were awarded against the petitioner. Nalubowa’s team indicated an intention to appeal.
The sequence—initial declaration, recount, High Court dismissal, then public admission of a private meeting with the President—has produced sharp reactions among opposition supporters. Some argue that any opposition politician meeting Museveni while other NUP leaders and supporters have faced arrests or legal difficulties undermines the party’s posture.
Others note that meetings between opposition figures and the President are not unprecedented and that refusing a summons may carry its own risks. Speculative social-media lists naming particular MPs have circulated, but Nalubowa has not publicly confirmed specific identities and NUP has not verified any of them. Claims of large cash payments have also appeared in some commentary; these remain unsubstantiated allegations.
The episode therefore sits at the intersection of three documented facts and several contested interpretations. The documented facts are the High Court ruling that left Nameere’s election intact, Nalubowa’s own public statement that she met the President and that others did likewise, and NUP’s explicit denial that it was consulted or informed.
The contested elements are the precise nature of the summons, the purpose of the meeting, the identities and circumstances of any other attendees, and whether the party leadership had any earlier informal knowledge.
Until those points are clarified by primary evidence or further statements from the individuals involved, the story remains a live illustration of the practical difficulties opposition parties face when individual candidates maintain private lines of contact with the presidency after contested elections.
