Ejang made the explosive allegations before Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE), where she had been summoned to explain financial irregularities contained in the Auditor General’s report on the human rights body.

Her appearance before the committee has opened another chapter in the long-running leadership and accountability problems at UHRC, an institution constitutionally mandated to protect and promote human rights in Uganda. Ejang was specifically questioned over Shs70 million reportedly spent on furniture, expenditure that the Auditor General flagged for lacking the necessary procurement approvals.

However, instead of limiting her testimony to the disputed expenditure, Ejang used the opportunity to raise concerns about the conduct of senior officials at the commission, including Wangadya. She told lawmakers that she had been under pressure and feared for her safety following what she described as threats from some members of the commission. Ejang’s allegations have now placed the UHRC’s internal management, financial controls and relations between commissioners and its administrative leadership under fresh parliamentary scrutiny.

Shs5m monthly demand

According to Ejang, Wangadya demanded a monthly honorarium of Shs5 million from the commission even though she was already a salaried official. The allegation is likely to attract significant attention because COSASE is investigating how public resources have been authorised and spent at the commission, particularly amid questions over whether expenditures complied with approved procedures. Ejang presented herself to the committee as an officer caught between competing demands from the commission’s leadership and the requirements of public financial management.

She maintained that some of the decisions she was being asked to implement raised questions about accountability and that her resistance to certain actions contributed to the tensions within the institution. The former accounting officer also told lawmakers that she had become concerned about her personal security. “I fear for my life,” Ejang told the committee, according to the account presented during the hearing.

Her statement prompted COSASE leadership to assure her that Parliament would provide protection as she continued to give evidence. The committee chairman, Muwada Nkunyingi, said Parliament would not allow a witness appearing before COSASE to be intimidated because of testimony concerning public resources.

Nkunyingi said the committee would ensure that Ejang was protected as it pursued the issues raised in the Auditor General’s report and the allegations emerging from the hearing. The intervention underscores the seriousness with which lawmakers are treating the former accounting officer’s claims.

COSASE probes Shs70m furniture expenditure

Ejang had been summoned primarily to explain the circumstances surrounding expenditure of more than Shs70 million on furniture at UHRC. The Auditor General questioned the expenditure, particularly the apparent absence of the required procurement approvals. The committee wanted to establish who authorised the spending, why the procurement procedures were not followed and whether the furniture was properly procured and accounted for.

As the accounting officer at the time, Ejang was expected to provide explanations on the financial transactions and the controls in place when the expenditure was incurred. Her appearance, however, evolved into a wider examination of the relationship between the commission’s administrative and political leadership.

Ejang’s evidence suggested that financial management at UHRC cannot be examined in isolation from the power struggles and disagreements that have characterised the institution. The committee is expected to examine documents, correspondence and authorisation records to establish responsibility for the disputed expenditures.

UHRC leadership woes

The latest allegations add to a history of leadership tensions that have periodically engulfed the Uganda Human Rights Commission. UHRC is one of Uganda’s key constitutional bodies and is expected to operate independently while holding government institutions accountable for human rights violations. Its leadership structure brings together commissioners responsible for the commission’s mandate and a secretariat responsible for implementing decisions and managing the institution’s administrative affairs.

That arrangement can become complicated when commissioners and senior administrators disagree over financial decisions, procurement, staffing or the interpretation of the commission’s mandate. Over the years, UHRC has faced questions surrounding disagreements among its leaders, administrative disputes and concerns over the management of public funds.

The latest parliamentary inquiry has therefore revived broader questions about whether the commission has adequate internal mechanisms for resolving disputes and enforcing accountability. At the centre of the current controversy is the relationship between the commissioners and the secretariat, particularly the extent to which the accounting officer can resist instructions that they consider inconsistent with financial regulations. Ejang’s testimony suggests that those tensions may have become particularly acute during her tenure.

A wider accountability question

The allegations against Wangadya remain claims made before Parliament and require verification through documentary evidence and responses from the chairperson and other officials implicated. The Shs5 million monthly honorarium allegation, in particular, raises questions about the legal basis for such payments, who authorised them, how they were recorded in the commission’s books and whether they were consistent with government remuneration guidelines.

COSASE is expected to establish whether the payments occurred and, if so, under what authority. The committee will also have to determine whether the disputed furniture expenditure represented an isolated procurement failure or was part of broader weaknesses in financial controls at UHRC. For lawmakers, the central issue is not merely whether money was spent, but whether public funds were committed through lawful, transparent and accountable processes.

Nkunyingi’s decision to offer protection to Ejang indicates that COSASE intends to pursue the allegations without allowing intimidation or fear to undermine the inquiry. The chairman has previously emphasised the committee’s responsibility to hold public institutions accountable, and the UHRC investigation provides another test of Parliament’s oversight role.

Ejang’s testimony opens new front

For Ejang, the COSASE hearing provided an opportunity to explain her role in the transactions while also placing on record what she says were pressures exerted by the commission’s leadership.

Her testimony has consequently transformed what began as an inquiry into Shs70 million worth of furniture into a broader investigation into leadership, financial management and alleged abuse of authority at one of Uganda’s most important constitutional institutions. The committee will now have to reconcile Ejang’s account with evidence from Wangadya, other commissioners and officials who were involved in the disputed transactions.

It will also have to determine whether the threats Ejang claims to have received can be substantiated and whether they were connected to her refusal to implement particular decisions. The outcome could have implications beyond the individuals involved. If COSASE establishes that public funds were improperly spent or that officials were subjected to intimidation for questioning questionable financial decisions, Parliament could recommend disciplinary, administrative or other appropriate action. For UHRC, the controversy comes at a particularly sensitive time.

An institution established to defend citizens against abuse of power must itself demonstrate the highest standards of transparency, integrity and respect for institutional accountability. The allegations made by Ejang have therefore placed the commission’s leadership under renewed scrutiny.

As COSASE continues its investigation, the central question will be whether the problems at UHRC are isolated disputes between individual officials or symptoms of deeper weaknesses in the commission’s governance and financial management. Whatever the outcome, Ejang’s testimony has ensured that the commission’s internal leadership struggles and financial controls will remain firmly on Parliament’s agenda.

The President’s assent comes weeks after he returned the two Bills to Parliament for reconsideration, objecting to provisions that he said could create unfair competition, encourage tax avoidance and negatively affect economic activity. Parliament subsequently adopted Museveni’s recommendations on both pieces of legislation on August 4, clearing the way for the President to assent to the revised Bills.

The two laws form part of the Government’s broader tax reforms for the 2026/27 financial year and are intended to strengthen domestic revenue mobilisation while balancing taxation with economic growth. Museveni’s decision closes a month-long legislative standoff that began in July when the President declined to sign the Bills into law. On July 14, Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa informed Parliament that Museveni had returned both Bills, raising particular concerns over the proposed withholding tax treatment of betting and gaming winnings and the sharp proposed increase in excise duty on single-use plastics.

Casino winnings lose proposed exemption

One of the major changes in the Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 2026 concerns winnings from betting and gaming. The original Bill proposed a withholding tax on betting and gaming winnings while exempting winnings from licensed land-based casinos. Museveni rejected the distinction, arguing that businesses engaged in substantially similar activities should not be subjected to different tax treatment merely because they operate through different platforms.

He warned that the proposed exemption could create opportunities for tax avoidance and revenue leakage. Parliament agreed with the President and removed the exemption. As a result, winnings from licensed land-based casinos will be subjected to withholding tax alongside winnings from other betting and gaming activities. Winnings paid under Uganda’s national lottery remain exempt. The change is expected to create a more uniform tax regime across Uganda’s gaming industry while protecting Government revenue.

Plastic tax increase scaled back

The President also rejected Parliament’s earlier proposal to dramatically increase excise duty on single-use plastics. Parliament had initially approved an increase from the existing rate of 2.5 percent or US$70 per tonne to 25 per cent or US$1,500 per tonne, whichever was higher.

Museveni argued that such a steep increase could impose significant cost pressures on manufacturers and businesses at a time when viable alternatives to plastic packaging remain limited. Following his intervention, Parliament retained the lower rate of 2.5 per cent or US$70 per tonne, whichever is higher. The decision represents a compromise between Government’s environmental objectives and concerns from businesses over the potential impact of a sharply increased levy.

Wider tax changes

The Excise Duty (Amendment) Act, 2026 contains a range of changes affecting goods and services as Government seeks to raise additional domestic revenue. The original proposals included adjustments affecting petroleum products, alcoholic beverages, construction materials and other products. Parliament’s tax proposals were presented as part of the measures required to finance the 2026/27 national budget.

The Income Tax amendments similarly introduce changes to the treatment of various taxable transactions. Uganda Revenue Authority’s tax amendments guide identifies changes including an expanded definition of “royalty” and tax treatment of payments for software and other intellectual property-related rights. The signing of the two Acts therefore gives Government and the Uganda Revenue Authority the legal basis to enforce the revised provisions.

Revenue versus economic growth

The President’s intervention has also highlighted the delicate balance Government faces between raising sufficient revenue and protecting businesses and consumers from excessive taxation. Finance Minister Henry Musasizi previously backed Museveni’s recommendations, telling Parliament that the proposed changes were intended to balance revenue mobilisation with economic growth, environmental protection and tax fairness.

With the two laws now signed, attention will shift to implementation and enforcement by the Uganda Revenue Authority. The legislation also signals Museveni’s continued insistence that tax policy should not only raise revenue but should avoid creating distortions that encourage businesses to restructure their operations solely to minimise tax liabilities. The President’s assent ultimately brings to an end the uncertainty surrounding the two Bills and establishes the revised tax framework for the 2026/27 financial year.

The directive, which takes effect on Monday, August 24, 2026, will see police conduct a 100-day operation targeting taxis deemed mechanically unsafe, with particular attention on the ageing 14-seater commuter vans popularly known as “Ganyegenya.”

The minister said the government could no longer allow public transport vehicles in dangerous mechanical condition to continue carrying passengers on Kampala’s busy and increasingly congested roads. “Starting Monday, 24th August, no DMC Taxis will be allowed within the Greater Kampala-Metropolitan Area,” Mr Byamukama said.

He added: “I have directed Police to launch a 100-day operation in the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area targeting commuter taxis found to be in a Dangerous Mechanical Condition (DMC).” According to the minister, the campaign is intended to restore safety standards in public transport and prevent road crashes linked to mechanically defective vehicles. “Our roads must not become death traps because of poorly maintained vehicles,” Byamukama said.

He singled out the dilapidated 14-seater taxis commonly known as “Ganyegenya”, saying the operation would particularly focus on vehicles in poor mechanical condition. “Public transport must be safe, roadworthy and fit for purpose. We owe Ugandans nothing less,” the minister said.

Why the Government Is Acting

The directive comes amid persistent concerns about the condition of some commuter taxis operating in Kampala and surrounding districts. Some of the older vehicles have continued operating despite visible mechanical problems, including worn-out bodywork and other defects that raise questions about their roadworthiness.

For the government, the issue is not simply about the age of a vehicle but whether it is mechanically fit to transport passengers. The 100-day operation therefore puts police at the centre of enforcement, with officers expected to identify and remove DMC taxis from the roads. However, the directive has immediately triggered a wider debate about the responsibility of government and taxi operators in maintaining safe public transport. Some Ugandans have welcomed the move as long overdue, while others argue that enforcement alone will not solve the problem unless the government also addresses Kampala’s poor road infrastructure.

Taxi Operators Face Disruption

The Uganda Taxi Operators Association has been among the stakeholders expected to face the biggest impact from the directive, given the large number of commuter taxis operating within the metropolitan area. Taxi operators have long argued that the condition of public transport vehicles cannot be separated from the state of the roads on which they operate. A taxi may be mechanically sound when it is purchased, but constant operation on badly damaged roads can accelerate wear and tear, operators argue.

This argument has been echoed by social media user Bulius Bsaire, who questioned whether banning DMC vehicles without fixing the roads would address the root of the problem. “A taxi is a car that moves up and down from 5am to 11pm on our bad roads. That’s why they get damaged very fast,” Bsaire said. He added: “However much you put this law in practice minus fixing the roads, you are wasting time. A taxi is not a salon car.” The concern reflects a broader argument among taxi operators and commuters that road conditions contribute significantly to the deterioration of public transport vehicles.

“Fix Roads First”

Several Ugandans have welcomed the minister’s concern for passenger safety but questioned the sequence of government intervention. Ssekabira Patrick says removing old taxis without improving the roads could punish operators and passengers without solving the underlying problem. “Road safety is important, but before removing these old taxis, why not first fix the roads they use?” he asked.

He called for better roads, bridges, drainage systems and traffic lights before demanding that taxi operators upgrade their vehicles. Ssekabira also questioned whether the directive could leave drivers and conductors without livelihoods. “Fix the roads, support people to upgrade their taxis, and create jobs. Don’t punish ordinary Ugandans for problems the government has failed to solve,” he said.

Support for the Ban

Despite the criticism, the minister’s announcement received considerable support from Ugandans who have experienced travelling in poorly maintained taxis. Gonzalez Prince described the vehicles targeted by the government as extremely dangerous, saying the minister had his support. “Actually these are not taxis but moving graves,” he said.

Lauben Mukiga also backed the operation, saying he had personally experienced taxis in extremely poor condition. “I recently used a taxi and the condition was worse than what you can imagine,” he said, urging the government to ban such vehicles.

Victor Sserunkuuma also supported the objective of the operation but raised concerns about enforcement, arguing that some DMC vehicles could have connections to powerful individuals. “That’s good Hon. minister but I want to tell you that this will not work because some very DMC taxis are owned by police officers, army personnel, government officials,” he said. His comments highlight one of the biggest challenges facing the operation: ensuring that enforcement is applied fairly and without political or institutional interference.

Where Will Passengers Go?

Another major concern is what happens to passengers if a significant number of taxis are removed from the roads. Ben Bens Ampaire welcomed the move on safety grounds but questioned whether the government had prepared alternatives. “Great move for safety, however what alternative have you put in place as government for passengers to use in case these DMCs are impounded and passengers remain stranded on roads?” he asked.

Martin similarly argued that protecting passengers must remain the priority but said safe transport should also be affordable and accessible. “Protecting passengers should never be negotiable,” Martin said. “But alongside removing DMC taxis, government should ensure affordable, reliable alternatives so ordinary Ugandans aren’t left stranded.” Bigirwa Moses described the directive as a good move for passenger safety but warned that implementation without alternatives could have serious consequences for drivers and conductors who depend on taxis for their livelihoods.

Calls for Nationwide Operation

Some Ugandans have also challenged the government to extend the operation beyond Kampala. Into the World of Physics said other cities should also be covered, arguing that road safety should not be limited to the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area. Ken similarly called for the directive to apply across the country and for all forms of public transport to be subjected to safety standards.

Karl Wega said the operation was welcome but should address dangerous practices such as overloading. He cited instances in parts of western Uganda where passengers are allegedly squeezed into vehicles beyond their intended capacity. “We cannot wait until people die and then blame every tragedy on bad roads,” he said, calling for enforcement covering vehicles, passenger loading and the general safety of road users.

The Road Condition Question

One of the most recurring concerns in the public reaction is the condition of Kampala’s roads. Wycliffe Lubowa supported the minister but cited the Nateete-Nakawuka-Kasanje road as an example of infrastructure that could damage even relatively new vehicles. Jo22flash similarly welcomed the directive but pointed to the Kibuye-Busega road, saying poor road conditions were contributing to vehicle deterioration.

Another user, ArinDan, warned that police officers should receive clear guidelines to prevent the operation from becoming an excuse to impound vehicles that are not actually DMC. The user also posed a fundamental question: “What should have come first? Good roads or good vehicles?”

Balancing Safety and Livelihoods

The Byamukama directive has therefore opened a difficult debate about how Uganda should reform its public transport system. There is broad agreement that passengers deserve safe, roadworthy vehicles. The disagreement is over how the government should achieve that objective without disrupting the transport system or destroying the livelihoods of thousands of drivers, conductors and taxi owners.

The 100-day operation will test whether the government can enforce the law consistently while distinguishing genuinely dangerous vehicles from those whose mechanical problems can be repaired. It will also test whether authorities can prevent selective enforcement, corruption and harassment during roadside inspections.

For taxi operators, the bigger question is whether the government will accompany enforcement with practical measures to help them replace or rehabilitate ageing vehicles. For commuters, the immediate concern will be whether the removal of DMC taxis improves safety without creating transport shortages and higher fares.

As the August 24 deadline approaches, the debate is increasingly shifting from whether DMC taxis should be removed to how the operation will be implemented, who will be affected and what government will do about the roads and transport alternatives that remain at the heart of Kampala’s mobility crisis.

The money was displayed by URA Public and Corporate Affairs Manager Robert Kalumba as the tax authority confirmed that legal proceedings against Geoffrey Ssozi Kawere, Manager External Operations Customs in Dar es Salaam, are underway.

The development places a senior URA officer at the centre of an alleged corruption case involving a substantial amount of foreign currency and has raised fresh questions about integrity and accountability within the revenue collection agency.

Cash Displayed

During the display, Kalumba presented the $60,000 allegedly recovered in connection with the bribery case involving Kawere.

The cash was exhibited as part of the evidence in the ongoing matter, giving the public a glimpse of the financial stakes involved in the allegations against the URA official.

The authority said the money is allegedly linked to a bribe and that the case has proceeded to the legal process.

The display of the cash is likely to intensify scrutiny of the circumstances under which the money allegedly changed hands and the purpose for which it was reportedly offered.

Senior URA Official In Court Spotlight

Kawere serves as Manager External Operations Customs in Dar es Salaam, a position that places him within URA’s customs operations outside Uganda.

Customs officers play a critical role in facilitating cross-border trade, enforcing customs laws and protecting government revenue. Officials stationed at major regional trade points interact with importers, exporters, clearing agents and other stakeholders involved in international commerce.

The allegations against a manager in such a position therefore carry significant institutional implications.

URA confirmed that legal proceedings against Kawere are underway, meaning the allegations will now be subjected to the established judicial process. The authority has not indicated that the accused has been convicted of any offence.

As a matter of law, Kawere remains entitled to the presumption of innocence until a court determines otherwise.

Ura Signals Zero Tolerance

The case comes amid continued efforts by revenue authorities to strengthen internal controls and combat corruption among staff.

For URA, the allegations involving a senior customs manager present both a reputational challenge and an opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of its internal accountability mechanisms.

The public display of the alleged bribe money sends a strong message that cases involving corruption within the institution can result in investigation and prosecution.

URA’s decision to publicly exhibit the cash also demonstrates the seriousness with which the authority is treating the allegations.

Corruption within revenue agencies can have consequences far beyond the individuals involved. Where customs officials are accused of accepting illegal payments, the conduct can undermine public confidence, distort legitimate trade and potentially lead to revenue losses.

Why Customs Officers Are Critical

Customs operations are central to Uganda’s tax administration because the country relies heavily on cross-border trade and imports.

Customs officials are responsible for enforcing regulations governing goods entering and leaving the country, assessing applicable duties and taxes, and helping prevent illegal trade.

Their decisions can therefore have substantial financial consequences for businesses and government.

An allegation involving $60,000 is particularly significant because of the size of the amount and the seniority of the official named in the case.

The proceedings will be expected to establish what the money was allegedly intended to secure, who offered it, who received it and whether the transaction amounted to a criminal offence under Ugandan law.

Legal Process Now Underway

URA’s confirmation that legal proceedings have commenced shifts the matter from an internal disciplinary issue into the formal justice system.

Investigators and prosecutors will be expected to present evidence before the relevant court, while the accused will have an opportunity to challenge the allegations and present his defence.

The displayed $60,000 could form part of the evidence relied upon by investigators, although the mere possession or display of cash does not by itself establish criminal liability.

The prosecution will have to prove the specific allegations against Kawere to the required legal standard.

A Test For URA’s Accountability

The case is likely to attract attention because of Kawere’s position within URA and the large amount of money allegedly involved.

The authority has repeatedly emphasised the importance of integrity in revenue collection, given the direct relationship between effective tax administration and the government’s ability to finance public services.

Any perception that customs officers can influence official decisions through private payments risks undermining that mission. By displaying the alleged bribe cash and confirming that legal proceedings are underway, URA has placed the case firmly in the public domain. The outcome will now depend on the evidence presented before court.

For URA, the case provides another test of its ability to police its own ranks while protecting the credibility of Uganda’s tax administration.

For Kawere, the legal process will determine whether the allegations against him are substantiated.

Until then, the $60,000 displayed by URA remains alleged evidence in an ongoing case, rather than proof of guilt.

Members of Parliament conducting an oversight inspection of NSSF property in Temangalo have discovered that part of the land purchased by the Fund from businessman Amos Nzeyi remains inaccessible to NSSF, with farming and cattle grazing activities reportedly continuing on the property.

The revelation has reopened questions about one of Uganda’s longest-running land controversies and raised a fundamental question: How can land that NSSF says it fully purchased, paid for and holds in its name remain occupied by the very person who sold it?

The latest inspection was led by the Parliamentary Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE), chaired by Muwada Nkunyingi, as part of Parliament’s scrutiny of NSSF land holdings and its housing project.

Nkunyingi said the committee was prompted to physically visit Temangalo after receiving information that one of the original vendors, Nzeyi, continued to occupy part of the property despite having received full payment.

“COSASE Committee [is] doing oversight on NSSF land in Temangalo and the NSSF housing project,” Nkunyingi said in a statement following the inspection.

“The Committee earlier learnt that one of original vendors/seller Amos Nzei is still occupying and farming/grazing cattle on the land even though they received full payment. This prompted our interest for a physical inspection.” The MPs’ visit produced a striking discovery.

According to Nkunyingi, cattle and farms were visible on the disputed section, while the property appeared fenced off. Although the title is reportedly in NSSF’s names, the Fund could not access the land.

“The land looked fenced, title said to be in NSSF names BUT not accessible by NSSF thus we stopped by the fence,” he said.

The disputed portion measures about 50 acres out of the 463.87 acres purchased by NSSF in the Temangalo transaction.

Nkunyingi said the committee will now seek answers from NSSF and other parties about why the former vendor has remained on the land for years without giving the Fund vacant possession. “NSSF claim to have issued eviction notice. We shall further seek to establish reasons as to why the former vendor has not offered NSSF vacant possession for years,” he said.

The discovery is particularly significant because the Temangalo controversy was never simply about the price of land. It involved questions about ownership, valuation, the circumstances under which the land was acquired, the identities of the vendors and whether NSSF obtained effective possession of the property after paying billions of shillings.

A scandal that refuses to die

The original Temangalo controversy erupted in 2008 after NSSF bought approximately 463.87 acres from Nzeyi and a company associated with former Prime Minister Amama Mbabazi for about Sh11.2 billion.

Contemporary records and parliamentary investigations placed the price at roughly Sh24 million per acre, although figures have varied depending on the portion and transaction being discussed. NSSF later maintained that it had acquired the land through formal transactions and possessed valid titles. The purchase immediately triggered political controversy.

At the time, Mbabazi was a powerful government figure, serving as Security Minister, while Nzeyi was a prominent businessman and his associate. A parliamentary investigation questioned the valuation of the property and the circumstances surrounding NSSF’s decision to buy it.

During the 2008 parliamentary probe, three independent valuations were reported to have placed the value of the land significantly below the price paid by NSSF, with allegations that the property had been acquired at an inflated price. Mbabazi denied directly managing the transaction, maintaining that Nzeyi handled the sale.

The controversy became one of the defining political scandals of the period, damaging the reputations of several senior officials and prompting intense scrutiny of NSSF’s investment decisions. But the story did not end there.

Ownership questions emerge

Years after the original transaction, another layer of controversy emerged. In 2018, a Canadian-based family linked to the former owners of Temangalo Tea Estate petitioned the Commission of Inquiry into Land Matters, claiming ownership of about 366.2 acres forming part of the land sold to NSSF.

The family, represented by Nazim Moosa, said the property had historically belonged to Temangalo Tea Estate Limited, associated with the family of the late Mohammed Hassnali Moosa.

The family argued that its property had been taken over following the expulsion of Asians during Idi Amin’s regime and subsequently transferred through circumstances they disputed.

The renewed claims transformed Temangalo from a controversy over price into a much wider dispute over the chain of ownership.

The Land Commission subsequently summoned individuals involved in the property’s history, including Abbas Mawanda, the man Nzeyi said had sold him part of the land.

Mawanda, a former Uganda Development Bank managing director, challenged aspects of Nzeyi’s account, including documents relating to how the land had allegedly been acquired.

At one stage, the controversy involved claims that some of the disputed land had been acquired by Nzeyi before eventually being sold to NSSF.

NSSF, however, defended its position, telling the Land Commission in 2018 that it had purchased the 463.87 acres on two titles and had paid Nzeyi Sh24 million per acre after receiving titles that were believed to be genuine. The Fund maintained that it had valid ownership documents.

The 50-acre question

The latest COSASE inspection introduces a new and potentially explosive dimension. Even assuming that the NSSF titles are valid, Parliament now wants to know why a former vendor would continue to exercise physical control over part of the property years after receiving payment. The issue of vacant possession is crucial.

Buying land does not merely involve obtaining paperwork. The purchaser ordinarily expects to take control and use the property for the purpose for which it was acquired.

Yet, according to the committee, the 50-acre section remains fenced and occupied, with cattle grazing and farming activities visible from outside.

That means the current dispute is no longer confined to what happened in 2008. It is about what has happened to the property since then.

The committee will have to establish whether Nzeyi remains on the land personally, whether the occupation is authorised in any form, whether there are tenants or other occupants, whether NSSF formally served eviction notices and, critically, why those notices have apparently not resulted in vacant possession.

It will also need to establish whether the occupation has affected NSSF’s plans for the property and whether the Fund has suffered financial losses as a result.

Housing project under microscope

The MPs did not limit their inspection to the disputed land. COSASE also examined the NSSF housing project in Temangalo, with Nkunyingi saying legislators raised questions concerning the size of rooms, design, quality and workmanship.

“We also made various observations on the housing project including size of rooms, quality, design and workmanship to which we shall seek further clarification,” he said.

This means the committee’s inquiry could now develop into a broader examination of how NSSF has managed its Temangalo investment—from the original acquisition and possession of the land to the development of housing on the property. For contributors to the Fund, the stakes are high.

NSSF manages workers’ savings and invests them in assets intended to generate returns for members. Any prolonged dispute over ownership, possession or development therefore raises questions about the protection and utilisation of workers’ money.

A scandal entering its third chapter

Temangalo has already passed through several official investigations. First came the parliamentary scrutiny following the 2008 purchase. Then came renewed controversy before the Commission of Inquiry into Land Matters in 2018, including claims by the Moosa family over hundreds of acres. Parliament again summoned NSSF and Nzeyi in 2019 as legislators examined allegations concerning the property.

The latest COSASE inspection shows that, despite those years of investigations, important questions about the physical control and use of the land remain unresolved.

The committee has not yet made a final finding that Nzeyi is illegally occupying the 50 acres. Its current position is that the circumstances surrounding the occupation must be established. That distinction will be important as the inquiry proceeds. But the physical discovery itself is difficult to ignore.

A title may sit in NSSF’s name. A purchase agreement may have been signed. Billions may have changed hands. Yet Parliament says it has found cattle grazing and farms behind a fence on a portion of the very land NSSF says it owns.

For COSASE, the next task will be to follow the paper trail to the ground—and determine how, after nearly two decades, the seller of land can still apparently be on the land he sold.

Temangalo was once a scandal about the price of land. Today, Parliament is asking an even more basic question: Who actually controls the land?

The investigation into the brutal killing of Sports Club Villa captain David Owori has entered a new phase, with police arresting 17 suspects believed to be linked to the gang that allegedly attacked the footballer outside his home in Makindye.

The arrests represent the biggest breakthrough in the investigation since Owori was attacked on the night of August 4 and died the following morning from injuries sustained during the assault. Police say the suspects are being investigated for their possible involvement in Owori’s killing and a wider series of robberies across Kampala.

According to investigators, the 17 suspects include five key suspects, nine people believed to be associates of the main suspects, and three alleged dealers in stolen mobile phones.

Kampala Metropolitan Police spokesperson Racheal Kawala said investigations remain active, with detectives pursuing additional suspects identified through information obtained from those already in custody.

“Investigations into the circumstances surrounding the murder are ongoing, and further updates will be provided as more information becomes available,” Kawala said.

The development has offered investigators an important trail in a case that triggered widespread anger and grief across Uganda’s football community.

Phone Leads Detectives To Suspects

A stolen iPhone 14 Pro Max belonging to Owori has emerged as one of the most important pieces of evidence in the investigation. Police previously disclosed that tracking the phone led detectives to two people suspected of operating within a network dealing in stolen mobile phones. The suspects were identified as Munyaneza Bashir, alias Jemo, and his associate Magoba Samuel.

Police spokesperson Kituuma Rusoke said the tracking operation provided detectives with a direct lead. “It has been established that the deceased was robbed of an iPhone 14 Pro Max. The tracking of the stolen phone has led officers to two suspects,” Rusoke said.

The phone was subsequently recovered at Usafi Taxi Park, near Usafi Market in Kampala, giving detectives a critical piece of evidence linking the robbery to the wider stolen-phone network.

Police operations targeting properties associated with suspects in Gangu Village and Kasubi also yielded additional exhibits.

Among the items recovered were two pairs of shoes, one of which reportedly had bloodstains, shin guards believed to have belonged to Owori, a black bag, pepper spray and a motorcycle.

The bloodstained footwear is expected to undergo forensic examination as investigators attempt to establish whether it can be connected to the scene of the attack.

A Suspected Gang On The Move

Investigators believe Owori may have fallen victim to a gang that was moving through different parts of Kampala looking for people to rob.

According to police, the group allegedly operated around Nsambya, Nabisaalu, Kirombe and Makindye on the night Owori was attacked.

Detectives suspect the gang used paving blocks, commonly known as pavers, to assault victims before taking their valuables. The information obtained from suspects in custody has reportedly helped investigators identify other alleged accomplices who remain at large.

This has widened the investigation beyond Owori’s death to a possible chain of related robberies committed by the same group.

Police are therefore not only trying to establish who directly participated in the attack on the footballer but are also examining the suspected criminal network behind the attacks.

Kasingye: Villa Welcomes Breakthrough

SC Villa spokesperson Asan Kasingye, a former Assistant Inspector General of Police, has welcomed the progress made by the Criminal Investigations Directorate.

Kasingye previously said the club was encouraged by the recovery of Owori’s phone and the arrests arising from the investigation.

“We at SC Villa are happy to hear that the CID has done incredible work in the investigation of the murder of our captain, the late David Owori,” Kasingye said.

He added that the recovery of the phone and arrests had strengthened the club’s confidence in the investigation.

Kasingye also disclosed that investigators had arrested individuals linked to several gangs operating in the area and said the club remained confident that detectives would pursue the remaining assailants and establish what happened to their captain.

For SC Villa, the investigation is more than a criminal case. Owori was not simply another player. He was the club’s captain, a leader on and off the pitch, and one of the players who helped Villa win its record 17th Uganda Premier League title in 2024.

The Night Owori Was Killed

Owori was attacked as he approached his residence in Makindye after completing his day’s activities.

According to information previously provided by Kasingye, the footballer was targeted at around 8pm. He was reportedly attacked and robbed of his phone before being left severely injured.

A close friend and former teammate, Nicholas Kabonge, rushed him to hospital while he was still conscious, but his condition deteriorated.

Owori died at Case Clinic in Kampala on the morning of August 5 after suffering severe injuries during the attack. The killing shocked Uganda’s football fraternity, with players, clubs, officials and supporters demanding that the perpetrators be brought to justice.

The 28-year-old footballer had represented both club and country and had previously played for Vipers SC, Spanish side Vélez CF and Swedish club Utsiktens BK before returning to SC Villa.

His final competitive appearance came on August 1, when he captained Villa against Maroons FC in the FUFA Super 8 quarter-final.

More Arrests Expected

With 17 suspects now in custody, investigators are expected to concentrate on determining the precise roles played by each individual.

Police have been careful to describe those arrested as suspects, meaning their culpability has yet to be established in court.

The investigation is also expected to focus on the alleged stolen-phone network. During an earlier operation linked to the tracking of Owori’s phone, security personnel recovered four bags containing dozens of suspected stolen electronic devices, including scores of iPhones, Samsung phones and other brands, as well as tablets, motherboards and SIM cards.

The recovery has raised questions about the scale of the criminal network allegedly operating behind Kampala’s street robberies and stolen-phone trade.

For police, the challenge now is to convert the arrests and recovered exhibits into a watertight case capable of establishing exactly what happened on the night Owori was killed.

For SC Villa, however, the immediate demand remains simple: justice for their fallen captain.

As detectives continue hunting for suspects still at large, the recovery of Owori’s phone, the arrest of 17 suspects and the identification of alleged accomplices have given the grieving football community its first significant sign that the killing may not go unresolved.

The investigation remains ongoing, with police expected to make further arrests and provide additional details as they establish the individual roles of those implicated in the murder.

The development occurred on Tuesday at Butambala Magistrate’s Court, where Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Joel Ssenyonyi, appeared as one of the sureties for Kivumbi as the legislator sought to secure his release on bail.

Ssenyonyi confirmed his appearance at court, saying: “Today, I appeared at Butambala Magistrate’s Court as one of the sureties for Hon. Muwanga Kivumbi, during his bail hearing.”

However, the proceedings did not proceed to a final determination of Kivumbi’s bail application after the prosecution raised an objection to the live streaming of the hearing.

Prosecution Seeks to Stop Live Streaming

According to Ssenyonyi, the prosecution asked court to ban live streaming of the proceedings. “The matter was adjourned to 14th August 2026 after the prosecution sought for court to ban live streaming of the proceedings,” Ssenyonyi said.

The request means that the court will have to consider the prosecution’s position before the bail proceedings can move forward.

The issue of live streaming has added another dimension to a case that is already attracting significant public and political interest because of Kivumbi’s position as an opposition legislator and Ssenyonyi’s involvement as one of his sureties.

The August 14 hearing is therefore expected to be closely watched, particularly by Kivumbi’s supporters, opposition politicians and members of the public following the case.

Bail Application Remains Pending

The adjournment does not amount to a rejection of Kivumbi’s application for bail. Instead, the matter remains pending before the Butambala Magistrate’s Court, with the parties expected to return on August 14.

Bail proceedings are intended to determine whether an accused person can be released from custody while the substantive criminal case, where applicable, continues.

Courts ordinarily consider a number of factors when determining bail, including the applicant’s likelihood of appearing in court, the suitability of proposed sureties and other circumstances surrounding the case. The appearance of Ssenyonyi as a surety is therefore an important part of the process.

Ssenyonyi Stands with Fellow Opposition MP

Ssenyonyi’s appearance in court also underlines the political significance of Kivumbi’s case. As Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, Ssenyonyi has continued to take an active role in cases involving opposition legislators and political actors facing legal challenges.

By presenting himself as a surety for Kivumbi, Ssenyonyi has demonstrated his willingness to support the legislator through the judicial process. His presence also sends a political message of solidarity within the opposition at a time when Kivumbi is seeking to regain his freedom through the courts.

Kivumbi is a prominent opposition politician and legislator, and his legal troubles have attracted attention beyond Butambala County.

The involvement of the Leader of the Opposition has consequently heightened interest in the proceedings and the eventual decision of court.

Live Streaming Becomes Key Issue

The prosecution’s request to stop live streaming has become one of the immediate issues surrounding the bail hearing. Live coverage of court proceedings has increasingly become a way for the public to follow cases involving prominent political figures and other public personalities.

Supporters of live streaming argue that it allows citizens who cannot physically attend court to follow proceedings and promotes transparency.

However, courts have authority over the conduct and management of proceedings, including decisions concerning recording and broadcasting.

The prosecution’s request will therefore require the court to determine whether live streaming should continue or whether restrictions should be imposed.

Opposition Supporters Await August 14

The adjournment has left Kivumbi’s supporters waiting for another opportunity for the court to consider his bail application.

The August 14 hearing could become a crucial stage in the case, particularly if court resolves the dispute surrounding live streaming and proceeds with the substantive bail application.

Ssenyonyi’s continued involvement as a surety is also expected to remain significant as the court considers whether the conditions for Kivumbi’s release have been satisfied. If court is satisfied with the proposed sureties and other requirements, Kivumbi could be released subject to conditions designed to ensure that he returns whenever required. However, the final decision rests with the court.

A Politically Significant Court Appearance

Tuesday’s proceedings have once again placed the spotlight on the relationship between Uganda’s opposition politics and the criminal justice system.

The presence of Ssenyonyi at Butambala Magistrate’s Court demonstrates the political importance attached to Kivumbi’s case, while the prosecution’s application against live streaming has introduced a fresh issue for judicial determination.

For now, however, there is no final decision on Kivumbi’s bail. The legislator will have to wait until August 14, when the parties are expected to return to Butambala Magistrate’s Court.

The next hearing is likely to attract considerable attention as the court considers the prosecution’s request concerning live streaming and, ultimately, moves towards determining whether Kivumbi should be released on bail.

For Ssenyonyi and Kivumbi’s supporters, the immediate focus is clear: ensuring that the bail application proceeds and that the court considers the request for Kivumbi’s release.

Until then, the Butambala Magistrate’s Court has adjourned the matter, leaving August 14 as the next major date in the opposition legislator’s ongoing legal battle.

The confrontation between Wangadya and Parliament has escalated into a test of accountability, parliamentary oversight and the limits of procedural power, with COSASE Chairperson Muwada Nkunyingi directing that the UHRC boss be produced before the committee at 9:00 a.m.

The development follows weeks of scrutiny into the operations of the Uganda Human Rights Commission, including allegations of leadership paralysis, delayed human-rights complaints, stalled tribunal proceedings and questions surrounding the management of public resources.

According to parliamentary records, COSASE summoned Wangadya after she failed to appear before the committee during its examination of the Auditor General’s report on the Commission. The committee had earlier been forced to suspend proceedings when UHRC officials appeared without their chairperson.

Nkunyingi orders production

Nkunyingi, who chairs COSASE in the 12th Parliament, has taken an increasingly firm position on the committee’s authority to compel accounting officers and heads of statutory institutions to appear before Parliament.

The committee’s concern is not simply Wangadya’s absence. MPs are seeking explanations about the wider state of affairs at the constitutional body, including the apparent breakdown in its leadership. Speaking in the context of the committee’s decision, Nkunyingi has insisted that public officials summoned by Parliament must respect the authority of the legislature and account for the institutions entrusted to them.

The committee has already established that UHRC had not held a formal Commission meeting since March 2026, despite the importance of such meetings in overseeing the Commission’s work. Officials also told MPs that the Commission’s tribunal proceedings had stalled, with the last sessions reportedly held in December 2025.

The absence of regular meetings has raised questions about how the Commission has continued to discharge its constitutional mandate.

Why Wangadya is being pursued

At the centre of the dispute is Wangadya’s failure to appear when initially required to do so. COSASE is examining accountability issues arising from the Auditor General’s report, but the committee’s inquiry has broadened to include governance and operational concerns within UHRC.

Among the issues raised is the handling of human-rights complaints. Parliament’s Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee separately questioned Wangadya over allegations that some cases were dismissed or closed without adequate involvement of other commissioners.

The committee has also heard allegations that more than 200 human-rights files were closed without due process.

Wangadya has disputed aspects of the criticism and defended some of the decisions attributed to her, explaining that certain complaints involved people who had been convicted of serious offences and were subsequently challenging aspects of their treatment in detention.

The controversy has therefore moved beyond an ordinary disagreement between a parliamentary committee and a public official. It now concerns whether the country’s principal constitutional human-rights institution has been functioning effectively and whether its leadership has complied with parliamentary accountability mechanisms.

The resignation question

Wangadya’s position has been further complicated by her resignation. She submitted a resignation notice to President Yoweri Museveni on July 6, 2026, but the Attorney General subsequently advised Parliament that the resignation does not automatically take effect until it is formally accepted by the appointing authority. She therefore remains the substantive UHRC chairperson.

That distinction is important because it means Wangadya cannot simply rely on her resignation notice to avoid accountability for the period in which she remains the Commission’s substantive chairperson.

The committee’s argument is that, until her resignation is formally concluded, she remains responsible for answering questions concerning the institution under her leadership.

But can COSASE simply order her arrest?

This is where the legal debate becomes significant. A legal expert who spoke about the developing dispute cautioned that parliamentary committees must follow the correct procedure before moving from an invitation or summons to an arrest or warrant.

The expert explained that there is a distinction between inviting a person to appear before a committee and formally compelling a witness to appear through the appropriate legal process.

“The process is flawed, because if you invite someone, you follow the procedure. If it is a witness and you invite them to testify, you issue criminal summons. They are just inviting her for the first [time]. They should have issued summons. If that person does not appear, you then [take the next step]. We wait and see tomorrow.”

The legal argument is essentially that Parliament’s power to demand accountability does not eliminate the requirement to observe due process.

That distinction could become critical if the committee proceeds to have Wangadya arrested.

A parliamentary committee may have powers to summon witnesses and require them to provide information relevant to its mandate. But the exercise of those powers must still conform to the law and the rules governing parliamentary proceedings.

A civil accountability matter, not automatically a criminal case

The legal expert further cautioned against treating the dispute as though Wangadya had already committed a criminal offence.

“This is a civil matter and it is due process must be followed,” the source said, warning that Wangadya could potentially be targeted if procedural safeguards are ignored.

That caution is particularly relevant because an order to produce a public official before a parliamentary committee should not automatically be interpreted as a finding of criminal guilt.

At this stage, the central issue is accountability before Parliament. The committee wants answers. Wangadya has a right to respond to the allegations, explain her decisions and challenge claims she considers inaccurate.

Any subsequent enforcement action must therefore be based on a lawful procedure rather than simply the committee’s frustration with her failure to appear.

UHRC’s leadership crisis

The confrontation comes at a particularly difficult moment for the Commission. During earlier COSASE proceedings, officials acknowledged that no formal Commission meeting had taken place since March. MPs questioned how the institution could effectively function without its governing body meeting regularly.

The tribunal system has also been affected. UHRC officials explained that the chairperson plays a critical role in tribunal proceedings, meaning her absence has contributed to delays in determining complaints.

The Commission’s Director of Complaints, Investigations and Legal Services, Pauline Nansamba, told the committee that tribunal sessions had last been held in December 2025 after the budget allocated for hearings was exhausted.

The revelations have intensified questions about whether the Commission is capable of fulfilling its constitutional mandate to protect and promote human rights.

Wangadya’s emotional appearance

The dispute has also become personal.

When Wangadya eventually appeared before a parliamentary committee, she broke down in tears while describing what she characterised as a sustained smear campaign against her.

She apologised for remarks she acknowledged were inappropriate, saying she had been pushed “to the edge.”

Her emotional testimony offered another dimension to the dispute: Wangadya portrays herself as a leader operating under immense pressure, while some MPs have portrayed the situation as evidence of institutional dysfunction. The two narratives are now colliding before Parliament.

What happens next?

The immediate question is whether Wangadya will voluntarily appear before COSASE at the scheduled 9:00 a.m. session, or whether the committee will invoke powers to compel her attendance.

If an arrest or warrant is pursued, the legality of the procedure is likely to become as important as the original accountability questions.

Nkunyingi and COSASE are under pressure to demonstrate that Parliament can hold powerful statutory institutions accountable. At the same time, Wangadya is entitled to lawful procedure and an opportunity to respond to allegations against her. The confrontation therefore presents Parliament with a delicate balancing act.

COSASE must demonstrate that summonses are not optional invitations, particularly when public money and constitutional institutions are under scrutiny. But it must equally ensure that its enforcement mechanisms comply with the law.

For Wangadya, the stakes are equally high. Her resignation notice has not yet ended her tenure, and Parliament’s position is that she remains answerable for the affairs of the Commission.

What began as a dispute over a missed parliamentary appearance has now become a broader confrontation over institutional accountability, due process and the independence and effectiveness of Uganda’s human-rights watchdog.

Tomorrow’s proceedings could determine whether the matter escalates into an arrest—or whether the parties step back and resolve the dispute through the proper parliamentary and legal channels.

The footage, which spread rapidly across X, Facebook and WhatsApp, prompted an outpouring of anger from Ugandans, many of whom described the images as deeply disturbing. Opposition supporters claimed the video showed Mugumya bearing signs consistent with severe physical abuse, while others urged caution until independent medical and forensic assessments could verify its authenticity.

The emergence of the video has reignited debate over Uganda’s human rights record, particularly allegations of enforced disappearances, incommunicado detention and torture involving opposition activists.

Among the first prominent voices to react was civil rights advocate Sarah Bireete, who said the allegations raised by the video demanded an immediate, transparent and impartial investigation.

“If these images are genuine, they raise very serious constitutional and human rights questions,” Bireete said, calling on authorities to ensure Mugumya’s safety and guarantee access to lawyers, relatives and independent medical personnel.

She argued that every detainee, regardless of political affiliation, is entitled to protection under Uganda’s Constitution and international human rights obligations.

National Unity Platform (NUP) Secretary General David Lewis Rubongoya described the circulating footage as “deeply disturbing” and accused security agencies of targeting opposition supporters through unlawful detention and abuse.

Rubongoya said the party had repeatedly raised concerns about the treatment of its members and supporters, urging independent institutions to investigate the allegations thoroughly.

“We cannot continue normalizing reports of torture and illegal detention,” he said. “Every Ugandan deserves protection under the law.”

NUP president Robert Kyagulanyi aka Bobi Wine, who has frequently accused the government of persecuting opposition supporters, also reacted to the video.

On his social media platforms, he called for accountability and demanded that authorities disclose Mugumya’s whereabouts and condition if he was in state custody.

Wine said the reported treatment of political opponents undermines the rule of law and damages Uganda’s international reputation.

Human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo urged restraint while emphasizing that the allegations required an urgent and credible investigation.

“If there are credible allegations of torture, they must be investigated promptly, independently and transparently,” Opiyo said.

He noted that torture is prohibited under Uganda’s Constitution as well as international treaties to which Uganda is a party.

“No public authority is above the law,” Opiyo said, adding that accountability mechanisms must function irrespective of the political identity of the alleged victim.

The circulation of the video also generated intense discussion across social media.

Some users expressed shock at the images and demanded immediate intervention by the Uganda Human Rights Commission, Parliament and the Inspectorate of Government where appropriate.

Others questioned why independent medical examinations had not yet been conducted or made public.

Several users urged the government to permit independent observers and human rights organizations to establish the facts surrounding Mugumya’s condition.

The controversy comes against the backdrop of longstanding concerns raised by local and international rights organizations regarding allegations of torture, arbitrary arrests and prolonged detention of political activists in Uganda. Authorities have consistently denied operating a policy of torture and have maintained that security agencies act within the law.

Legal experts say the latest controversy illustrates the importance of independent oversight institutions.

Under Ugandan law, allegations of torture should be investigated by competent authorities, while victims are entitled to medical care, legal representation and access to judicial remedies.

Rights advocates argue that swift, transparent investigations are essential not only for justice but also for maintaining public confidence in state institutions.

As the video continued to dominate public discussion, calls mounted for the Uganda Human Rights Commission and other independent bodies to verify the facts surrounding Mugumya’s condition.

Opposition leaders also appealed to international human rights organizations and diplomatic missions to monitor developments closely.

Meanwhile, several commentators cautioned against drawing definitive conclusions based solely on unverified social media content, urging authorities to release accurate information to dispel speculation.

The government had not, at the time of publication, issued a detailed response specifically addressing the circulating footage.

For many Ugandans, however, the controversy has become another flashpoint in the country’s continuing debate over civil liberties, political freedoms and accountability.

Whether the video ultimately proves authentic or not, analysts say the public reaction demonstrates the deep mistrust that exists between sections of the population and state institutions.

Human rights advocates insist that the only way to address such concerns is through transparent investigations, independent verification of evidence and full respect for constitutional protections.

As pressure continues to mount, attention is now focused on whether investigators will establish the authenticity of the video, determine the circumstances under which it was recorded and clarify Mugumya’s condition.

Until then, the disturbing footage is likely to remain at the center of Uganda’s political and human rights discourse, with opposition leaders, civil society and legal experts continuing to demand accountability and adherence to the rule of law.

The directive follows the officials’ arraignment before the Anti-Corruption Court on charges of embezzlement, causing financial loss and money laundering linked to billions of shillings allegedly misappropriated from Parliament between 2023 and 2026.

The seven officials affected by the interdiction are Chris Obore, Director of Communications and Public Affairs; Daniel Adilo, Director of Human Resource; Leonard Okema, Executive Secretary in the Office of the Speaker; Rajab Kaaya Ssemalulu, Principal Research Officer; Emmanuel Emuron Okwi, Principal Protocol Officer; Vincent Otebata, Capacity Development Officer; and Methods Murebe, Chief Executive Officer of the Parliamentary SACCO, who is jointly charged in the money laundering case.

The Inspectorate said the interdictions are intended to safeguard ongoing investigations and ensure that those facing criminal charges do not interfere with witnesses, documentary evidence or official processes while their cases proceed through court.

According to the Inspectorate, the accused officials face a combination of individual and joint charges arising from the alleged diversion of public resources entrusted to Parliament.

“The Inspectorate of Government reaffirms its unwavering commitment to upholding the rule of law and promoting accountability in the public sector,” the IGG said in an official statement following the court appearance.

“Through decisive action against the misuse of public resources, the Inspectorate continues to strengthen integrity in public service and reinforce the principle that no individual is above the law.”

Court documents indicate that the officials are accused of embezzling billions of shillings in separate transactions while also jointly facing charges of causing financial loss to government and laundering alleged proceeds of crime. The money laundering counts will be heard by the High Court because they fall outside the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Court.

The charges were sanctioned by Inspector General of Government Lady Justice Aisha Batala Naluzze after months of investigations into Parliament’s financial operations. Prosecutors allege that some of the accused knowingly processed and received funds suspected to be proceeds of crime.

The case has become one of the biggest corruption prosecutions involving senior parliamentary administrators in recent years and has intensified calls for accountability at Uganda’s legislature.

Deputy Inspector General of Government Dr. Patricia Achan Okiria has repeatedly emphasized the Inspectorate’s commitment to enforcing integrity in public institutions, noting that anti-corruption agencies will continue pursuing public officials suspected of abusing office irrespective of their status. She recently said the Inspectorate remains committed to strengthening accountability and promoting zero tolerance to corruption across government institutions.

The interdiction order means the officials are expected to step aside from their administrative responsibilities pending the determination of the criminal proceedings.

Social Media Reactions
The developments triggered intense debate across Uganda’s social media platforms, with many users welcoming the Inspectorate’s latest action while urging investigators to pursue all implicated officials without fear or favour.

Political commentator Sarah Bireete posted that the fight against corruption would only earn public confidence if investigations remain impartial and are allowed to reach their logical conclusion regardless of the offices held by suspects.

Human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo argued that due process must equally be respected, reminding the public that criminal charges do not amount to guilt until determined by court.

Former Kampala Deputy Lord Mayor Doreen Nyanjura, who recently visited Luzira Prison, attracted attention after revealing that Chris Obore appeared deeply distressed by the damage to his reputation following his arrest. She said the once outspoken public official appeared troubled by being branded a “national thief,” highlighting the personal toll the corruption allegations have taken even before trial.

On X, several Ugandans praised the IGG for extending investigations to Parliament, an institution often accused by critics of escaping accountability despite overseeing other public agencies.

Others questioned whether the anti-corruption campaign would ultimately recover stolen public funds or merely end with lengthy court proceedings.Some users also demanded that investigations be expanded to cover procurement processes, parliamentary welfare funds and all departments handling large public expenditures.

Bigger Fight Against Corruption
Analysts say the latest interdictions demonstrate a shift towards holding accounting officers and senior administrators personally responsible for decisions involving public resources.

The Inspectorate has in recent months intensified investigations into abuse of office, unexplained wealth and procurement irregularities across several government institutions as part of its broader anti-corruption strategy.

Officials argue that removing suspects from active office while investigations continue helps preserve evidence and protects institutional credibility.

The prosecution maintains that the evidence gathered so far justifies the charges and that further investigations remain ongoing.The accused officials, however, remain presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The Anti-Corruption Court has already remanded the officials while the High Court prepares to handle the money laundering counts.

As the legal battle unfolds, the IGG says it will continue working with other accountability agencies to ensure that public resources are protected and that officials entrusted with taxpayers’ money are held to the highest standards of integrity.

The outcome of the case is expected to shape public confidence in Uganda’s anti-corruption institutions and could set an important precedent for how future corruption cases involving senior government officials are handled.