Big Interview: The Coffee Bill reveals the worst of Museveni’s leadership- Muwanga Kivumbi

On Wednesday, Parliament passed the National Coffee (Amendment) Bill, 2024, effectively transferring the responsibilities of the Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA) to the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry, and Fisheries (MAAIF).

The controversial decision, made amidst protests and a media blackout, saw a reported attendance of 305 MPs.

President Museveni has defended the dissolution of the UCDA, saying the move is aimed at reducing inefficiencies and aligning the coffee sector with the government’s broader poverty eradication agenda. He warned that opposition to this restructuring could undermine Uganda's economic progress.

However, Muhammad Muwanga Kivumbi, Member of Parliament for Butambala County and Chairman of the Buganda Caucus, voiced concerns over the President’s reluctance to address the "rapex" strategy, suggesting that the failure to tackle this issue raises serious questions about Museveni's commitment to fiscal accountability.

Kivumbi also criticised what he called the "worst of Museveni’s politics," accusing the President of resorting to violence and tribalism when his political arguments falter.

Excerpts below;

We have seen Buganda consistently at the forefront in both political and economic discussions. Why do you believe Buganda plays such a central role?

Buganda has always been pivotal due to its large population, strategic location, and a distinct sense of cultural leadership. Historically, it often spearheads national movements. Take, for example, the restoration of cultural institutions Buganda led the charge for the revival of our heritage, in a campaign called Ebyaffe, which symbolized the struggle for cultural and political identity.

So, Buganda has a long history in driving change. Does this extend to its role in coffee production?

Absolutely. Coffee in Buganda is more than a crop it is woven into the socioeconomic fabric. Historically, Buganda leaders encouraged coffee cultivation to combat poverty. They called on each household to plant at least one or two acres of coffee, with chiefs across the region supporting this initiative.

Unlike large plantations, coffee here is often grown on small family plots, making it a grassroots economic engine that touches nearly every home.

Coffee, then, sounds almost universal within Buganda. How has this affected people’s attitudes toward it?

Yes, coffee cultivation has permeated most households, even among the middle class and young people. The crop’s low maintenance makes it ideal it doesn’t need much care or weeding.

It is a natural fit for Uganda’s landscape and, unlike other crops, you don’t have to plant it all at once. People are steadily adding coffee trees seasonally, and over time, they can cultivate substantial yields.

Yet, we hear mixed views some claim the current coffee earnings are just a temporary boom, driven by external market conditions. What do you think?

It is partly true, but we should recognize the broader growth. Uganda’s coffee output has reached about 6.4 to 8.4 million bags of processed beans exported annually, a significant increase. While global demand might impact prices, this surge in production reflects sustained local effort and investment.

Beyond the economic gains, does coffee have a political significance in Uganda?

Definitely. Historically, coffee like cotton and tobacco was promoted by colonialists as a cash crop. This was not to satisfy local consumption but to fuel foreign markets, particularly in Europe. Ugandans were encouraged to grow these crops for export, while subsisting on what little food they could produce.

However, as coffee production grew, it became a symbol of self-reliance and economic empowerment. It’s only natural that such a valuable resource also becomes a focal point of political interest.

So coffee, a historically significant crop, is at the heart of political debate again. What sparked the recent attention?

In Parliament, the coffee debate has been reignited by the Buganda Kingdom’s 'Emmwanyi Terimba' campaign, a program promoting coffee farming. With Buganda’s influence in the sector, questions about policy and control inevitably follow.

During the Covid-19 period, for example, we saw how politically crucial coffee was as the government even appointed a top defense official to lead the coffee marketing board, underscoring its strategic importance.

There are ongoing concerns about the UCDA and its future. Can you shed light on this?

It’s complicated. Despite positive performance indicators, the UCDA is facing restructuring under government rationalization plans. This raises questions, especially given that some agencies showing poor performance are still maintained, while the UCDA’s role in coffee development remains crucial. In 2018, the controversial “Coffee Act” allowed private players into marketing, sparking debates about its impact on the sector. Now, with government focus shifting, people are worried about who truly controls Uganda's coffee trade.

Does this influence Uganda’s relationships internationally?

Coffee has the potential to outpace even oil in long-term value. Oil is finite, but coffee is renewable, and if managed well, it could sustain Uganda’s economy indefinitely. But with moves like the Vinci Agreement, the government’s negotiations raise questions about control over the sector, especially with new markets like China and Russia opening up.

The new Coffee Bill 2024 introduces changes in the coffee sector. Could you explain what these changes are?

Yes, there is a small but significant addition in the new Coffee Bill. Just a couple of words have been added in one of the clauses, subtly shifting some of the Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA) functions to the Ministry of Agriculture. It was cleverly inserted, but if you examine Section 42 closely, you will see that a new function has been added to establish a coffee auction system.

So, this means UCDA now has to set up a coffee auction?

Exactly. This goes beyond UCDA’s previous general mandate to promote and market coffee. Now they’re explicitly tasked with creating a coffee auction. Behind the scenes, some companies have already been engaging with the government regarding this.

For example, companies from Russia and China have signed memorandums of understanding to manage aspects of Uganda’s coffee marketing.

How does this fit within the government’s overall rationalization strategy?

Rationalisation is not new; it is a part of a long process that began years ago. It started with discussions around appointing a single entity to market Ugandan coffee, including some contentious proposals, such as granting exclusive rights to market coffee to specific firms.

Some of these proposals were met with pushback, and others are still under consideration for renegotiation. The 2024 Coffee Bill is merely the latest step in this ongoing rationalization journey.

With the upcoming elections, do you think this bill could become a political issue?

Absolutely. Its timing, so close to the election cycle, could fuel the opposition's campaign narrative. The government may have underestimated the political implications, giving opposition parties an opening to question the rationalization process and its effectiveness.

Some argue that agencies such as UCDA create duplication and unnecessary costs. How do you respond to this criticism?

There is a misconception here. While agencies do incur costs, they serve critical roles, especially in sectors like coffee, which is Uganda’s key export. Globally, high-value commodities like coffee and oil are often managed through specialized agencies. These agencies ensure quality, market consistency, and regulatory compliance, which the Ministry of Agriculture, with its broad focus, might struggle to provide.

Do you think that shifting coffee management to the Ministry of Agriculture will impact coffee quality and Uganda’s brand?

That is a significant concern. Uganda has some of the world’s best coffee, often used to blend other coffees to enhance flavor. Our coffee is often rebranded as German or Italian due to its superior quality.

If management shifts to the Ministry, which doesn’t have the same track record as UCDA in promoting quality, it could impact the reputation and value of Ugandan coffee on the global market. This is why many are advocating for coffee to continue being managed by a specialized agency.

With the election coming up in 2026, do you think this issue will continue to play a role in the political landscape?

Rationalization and the Coffee Bill will remain hot topics, especially as campaigns pick up next year.

If the National Unity Platform (NUP) were to take over government as the main opposition party, would you handle the rationalization process differently?

We believe that genuine efficiencies are indeed achievable, but the government’s current approach misses the mark. The idea of creating a lean government can’t simply target productive agencies like UCDA without addressing the real inefficiencies. For example, we’d start by cutting down on redundancies downsizing the bloated cabinet, reducing unnecessary presidential advisors, and looking at overlapping roles within the district administration.

Government officials argue that the current rationalisation is a step towards a leaner government, addressing inefficiencies within agencies. Isn’t this aligned with the opposition’s calls for a more efficient system?

The opposition has always called for efficiency, but it needs to be approached in a smart, targeted way. Take the UCDA, for instance, which is a revenue-generating agency bringing in $1.4 billion annually. Such an organization shouldn’t be dismantled in the name of rationalization, especially when it’s following international best practices and achieving results. If the government wants a truly lean system, there is no need to start by dismantling agencies that are already proving effective.

But doesn’t that lead to an argument for keeping all specialised agencies, even those not performing at the same level?

No, not all agencies need to be retained, but we must differentiate between vital revenue-generating agencies like UCDA and others that may not be performing as well. For instance, agencies related to oil or investment have specific expertise and are crucial for national income generation. We support rationalization, but in a manner that preserves the productivity of key sectors.

So, you are saying that for high-flyers commodities like coffee, oil, and investment, agencies play an irreplaceable role?

Precisely. We are talking about agencies that directly influence national income through critical sectors. For example, in finance, you could consolidate the National Planning Authority with the Ministry’s Directorate of Economic Planning. But specialized agencies like the UCDA, which oversees a $1.4 billion export market, should remain independent to safeguard their revenue potential and maintain quality standards.

If agencies like UCDA are so crucial, why do you believe the government is pushing for rationalisation?

We suspect there may be underlying motives. By targeting agencies that are successfully boosting Uganda’s exports, there is a risk of undermining international standards and, ultimately, our income generation. The government should be working to support these agencies, not dismantling them.

Agencies like the UCDA have boards, regulatory autonomy, and clear performance indicators. They have demonstrated success in growing Uganda’s coffee industry, improving quality, and even expanding coffee farming into non-traditional areas.

You believe that UCDA, with its autonomy, is a model of how an agency should function within government?

Absolutely. UCDA’s structure and achievements make it an exceptional case. It has proven that agencies, when given autonomy and a clear mandate, can deliver results. Rationalizing agencies without considering their impact on revenue and international standards would be a step backwards for Uganda.

How do you trust this government, which you describe as incompetent and inefficient, to run a successful Coffee Development Authority, but you don’t trust it to manage other sectors if it were mainstreamed into the government?

The Coffee Development Authority operates independently, just like any other agency. It has proven its worth. You can see the results: coffee production is growing even in non-coffee growing areas, the quality of coffee in the country is improving, and it is bringing in revenue. It's a success story. Moreover, it is the right approach if we are going to compete in the coffee market, as others are doing the same. I believe in adopting international best practices.

But doesn’t that contradict your previous criticisms of the government?

When we discuss rationalization, we are not talking about removing the Bank of Uganda, for example. Rationalization doesn't mean eliminating important institutions, like the central bank. The government still needs certain agencies. In fact, I have argued before that the idea of rationalization came from me. The President took the idea I had prepared and implemented it in his own way.

Do you have a blueprint or a rationalization plan for Uganda’s expenditure?

Yes, we do. Our rationalization approach aims to save 5 trillion Ugandan shillings. We are addressing classified expenditure, which currently stands at 4.4 trillion. Out of that, we intend to cut 2 trillion because much of it doesn’t need to be classified.

Classified expenditure includes both classified assets and operational costs. People often assume it means constantly buying weapons, but that’s not the case. We don’t need to buy weapons every year. By the way rationalization is rapex. Can you define rapex?

What is “rapex”?

Rationalization is part of rapex. Rapex goes beyond rationalization; it is a broader strategy. We are reviewing the structure of all government expenditures to identify where we can make real savings. Rationalization is just one part of "rapex." For example, we are considering downsizing government, revising the government vehicle policy, reducing the number of MPs, and merging non-functional local governments. By implementing these measures, we could save up to 5 trillion shillings.

You mentioned tackling corruption. How significant is this in your plan?

Tackling corruption is a major focus. Uganda loses approximately 10 trillion shillings every year to corruption. Addressing this could allow us to save at least 1 trillion. We aim to remove redundant structures, such as anti-corruption desks that add no real value. The President has the power to address these inefficiencies through directives, without needing new legislation.

Do you feel the President has the authority to make these changes?

Absolutely. The President has the moral and legal authority to initiate these changes. However, when he avoids addressing "rapex," it raises questions. Real politics now, it is now bringing the worst of Museveni. Usual in moments where he has lost argument he resorts to violence, tribalism and he lost terribly in the debate when he tackled tribalism. Look around you, you are beyond tribe Unfortunately, when political arguments are lost, there’s often a resort to divisive tactics like tribalism. We have seen this play out, but we remind him that true leadership transcends tribal divisions.

What can Ugandans expect from the government in the next few years?

In two years, Ugandans could see significant reforms. In just 500 days of a new government, we could implement a framework like UCDA to drive growth and transparency.

The government seems to be in agreement with you on some issues, like rationalization. Why isn’t there more collaboration between you and the government on this?

There has been some progress, especially on issues like the National Forestry Authority (NFA). I made a strong case for the NFA to be restructured, despite opposition from MPs. We need to address the shrinking forest cover, and the current Ministry may not be able to handle it effectively. We need a more specialized agency to manage this.

So, you believe some agencies should be eliminated?

Yes, I have made the case for several agencies to be eliminated, even if some NRM MPs disagreed. But on key issues like the dairy industry, I believe we need specialized authorities to manage them effectively. We need to move away from bureaucracy and create agencies that can directly impact development.

But don't MPs representing coffee-growing areas want to keep the Coffee Development Authority intact?

Yes, the MPs from those areas have strongly supported the Coffee Development Authority, and I understand why. They see the benefits it brings to their constituencies. But we also need to ensure that government institutions are efficient and that resources are being used effectively for the greater good of the country.

So, who are the people now advocating for the Coffee Development Authority to stay? It seems to be the people of West Nile, who are growing cotton and saying that the Coffee Development Authority should go.

It is true that some in West Nile, where cotton is a major crop, have argued for the Coffee Development Authority to be dissolved. They feel that it doesn’t benefit their interests. However, they are not speaking for everyone. The Speaker of Parliament has been meeting with people from coffee-growing areas, and one by one, they have made it clear that the Coffee Development Authority is essential for their livelihoods.

Do you think these arguments are influenced by political alignment? Many of these areas are predominantly NRM, and could they be speaking in the language of the party leadership?

It is certainly a factor. Many MPs are representatives of their party, and they tend to echo the views of the party leadership. But they must also remember that they were elected to serve the people of Uganda, not just the party. It is important for MPs to stand above party lines when national interests are at stake. As representatives of the people, they should listen to the concerns of the population, even if it contradicts party positions.

But you mentioned a moral obligation to go beyond party politics. How should MPs balance their party loyalty with their duty to the nation?

MPs need to recognize that they represent the people of Uganda first and foremost, not just the party or the president. They are elected by the population, and sometimes, in the national interest, they need to set aside party positions. They have a responsibility to consult with their constituents and make decisions that serve the greater good. For example, on issues like coffee, MPs should consult with their people to better understand what the local farmers need before speaking on their behalf.

You have mentioned the case for coffee, but what about other sectors like dairy?

The dairy industry has grown significantly, and people are now calling for a Dairy Development Authority. With crops like tea and cocoa also gaining prominence, don’t you risk creating too many agencies?

It’s true that the dairy sector has grown, and creating a Dairy Development Authority is a valid argument. However, the government is looking at ways to address the needs of all these sectors without creating multiple, separate agencies. The idea is to create a National Food and Agriculture Authority that would house multiple sectors like coffee, dairy, and others, and give them specialized attention. For instance, we are facing challenges with milk being rejected by neighboring countries due to quality issues. By centralising these efforts, we can ensure that all sectors receive the attention they need without duplicating administrative structures.

How do you see this debate evolving politically? Do you think it will be resolved soon?

I am not sure how it will end, but I believe this debate will continue to unfold on the floor of Parliament. It’s a contentious issue, and it may not be resolved today or even in the next few weeks.

However, it’s important to remember that coffee is a vital crop for millions of Ugandans. As discussions continue, MPs must consider the livelihoods of the 12 million people who depend on coffee. The resolution may not come immediately, but the pressure is building, and it will eventually be addressed.