Mwenda Backtracks on Museveni Criticism, Apologizes for “Conmen” Slur

KAMPALA – Journalist and political commentator Andrew M. Mwenda has issued a rare and sweeping apology to President Yoweri Museveni and two businessmen he previously labeled “conmen” and “witch doctors,” following a direct response from the president.

In a column titled “On Museveni’s response to my article” published in The Independent on May 25, 2026, Mwenda details a complete reversal on key aspects of his earlier critique of the government’s policy of using state funds to support private businesses.

The mea culpa comes after President Museveni published a “missive” challenging Mwenda’s arguments. Contrary to public fear that the journalist might be in danger, Mwenda revealed he was “laughing with joy,” characterizing the president as a “ferocious intellectual able to hold his own in a policy debate.”

A Concession on Policy

In a significant intellectual pivot, Mwenda confessed he was wrong to condemn the president’s interventionist economic policy. He credited an unexpected source: Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates.

Recounting a 2009 conference in New York, Mwenda wrote that after he criticized state-funded startups as failures, Gates rebuked him. The billionaire argued that the biggest constraint to business in Africa is the absence of private risk capital.

Gates explained that a success rate of 8% is normal for such venture capital, and that a 20% success rate is considered world-class.

“You have mentioned only 5 projects your president supported, and they failed. I am sure there are those he supported that have succeeded. Your argument suffers from survivorship bias in reverse,” Mwenda recalled Gates telling him.

Mwenda admitted this was a “powerful indictment” of his argument and that he has since become “less inclined to oppose state support to startups.”

Apology for ‘Ad Hominem’ Attacks

The most dramatic portion of the article concerns Mwenda’s apology for his tone and personal attacks. He unreservedly apologized for suggesting the president’s decisions were due to his age, calling the remark a mistake he “personally should have been the last person to make.”

Furthermore, he issued a direct apology to businessmen Magoola and Senfuka—whom he had previously called “conmen and witch doctors.”

“I was professionally and personally wrong and unfair to the people I criticized,” Mwenda wrote. “I feel bad that I wrote in such a bad language, like a NUP activist rather than a journalist and an intellectual that I aspire to be.”

He admitted he had judged the men without visiting their factories or hearing their side of the story, a breach of journalistic ethics he now regrets. Mwenda has pledged to reach out to the men upon his return to Uganda, visit their plants, and interview people Senfuka has “healed.”

Remaining Differences

While conceding the principle of state intervention, Mwenda maintained a distinction over the implementation. He argues that Uganda lacks clear priority sectors, institutionalized criteria for allocating funds, and performance targets for beneficiaries.

He also clarified that his promise to the president not to write about the specific individuals again remains, stating, “What I can say here is that I am not against such selective allocation of state support… My criticism was not on the policy but the partners he selected.”

The article concludes with Mwenda vowing to respond in detail to a defense of the president written by his friend, Ellison Karuhanga, in his next column.