Dr. Muganga, the Vice Chancellor of Victoria University Kampala, was among a list of cabinet nominees submitted by President Museveni for vetting by Parliament’s Appointments Committee. However, his journey to Cabinet hit a legal brick wall after legislators established that he had previously held Canadian citizenship in addition to his Ugandan citizenship.The development has reignited debate about Uganda’s dual citizenship laws and whether successful Ugandans in the diaspora are being unfairly locked out of some of the country’s most influential public offices.

How The Drama Unfolded

Sources close to the Appointments Committee revealed that questions regarding Dr. Muganga’s citizenship status emerged during the vetting process.Although Muganga openly admitted that he previously possessed both Ugandan and Canadian citizenship, lawmakers reportedly concluded that his appointment to the sensitive Internal Affairs docket would be inconsistent with Uganda’s citizenship laws.The Ministry of Internal Affairs oversees immigration, citizenship matters, national identification, border management and several security-related functions, making it one of the country’s most sensitive government departments.

Following deliberations, the committee declined to approve his appointment and returned his name to the appointing authority.Addressing Parliament, Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa confirmed that most of the President’s nominees had successfully passed vetting, but one of the nominees had failed to secure approval.”Before I came here, I definitely had two citizenships—that’s the Ugandan citizenship and the Canadian citizenship,” Muganga had earlier explained while defending his record.He added that many Ugandans leave the country in search of opportunities abroad and later acquire foreign citizenship without losing their love for Uganda. “I am Ugandan. Uganda is my country,” he said.

The Law That Stopped Him

At the centre of the controversy is the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act of 2009.While the law permits Ugandans to acquire dual citizenship, it also places restrictions on holders of dual nationality from occupying certain sensitive public offices.Legal experts point to Section 19D and the Fifth Schedule of the Act, which identify offices considered critical to national security and sovereignty.Parliament reportedly concluded that the office of State Minister for Internal Affairs falls within the category of positions that require exclusive allegiance to Uganda.This legal interpretation effectively rendered Muganga ineligible despite his impressive professional credentials.Political observers say the decision demonstrates Parliament’s willingness to enforce statutory requirements regardless of an individual’s popularity or qualifications.

Tayebwa Defends The Decision

Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa defended the vetting process, insisting that Parliament was simply implementing existing laws.Sources within Parliament say committee members were unanimous that legal compliance had to take precedence over political considerations.”The law is very clear and Parliament must follow it,” a parliamentary source told this publication.Tayebwa reportedly informed legislators that 80 nominees had been cleared and returned to the President for appointment while a few cases remained pending due to procedural issues.The rejection of Muganga became the most talked-about outcome of the vetting exercise.

Opposition Weighs In

Leader of Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi is understood to have supported strict adherence to the law regardless of the nominee involved.Political analysts note that opposition legislators have consistently argued that legal requirements for public office should be applied equally to all candidates.Sources within Parliament indicate that opposition members of the committee insisted that making exceptions for politically connected individuals would set a dangerous precedent.For many legislators, the issue was not Muganga’s competence but whether the law allowed him to occupy the office he had been nominated for.

Sarah Birete Speaks Out

Anti-corruption activist Sarah Bireete said the controversy highlights the importance of conducting thorough background checks before appointments are announced.According to Bireete, appointing authorities should ensure that nominees satisfy all constitutional and statutory requirements before forwarding their names for vetting.She argued that Parliament’s role is to protect the integrity of public institutions and ensure that legal provisions are respected.Bireete also noted that the incident should spark broader discussions about whether Uganda’s laws governing dual citizenship and public office remain suitable for a modern globalized society.

From Classroom To Cabinet — And Back

For Dr. Muganga, the rejection marks a painful setback in what had been shaping into a remarkable political breakthrough.Widely known for his outspoken views on education reform, technology and innovation, Muganga has built a reputation as one of Uganda’s most visible academic leaders.Under his leadership, Victoria University has aggressively marketed itself as a modern institution focused on technology-driven learning and entrepreneurship.

Many young Ugandans view him as a symbol of professional success achieved through education and hard work.His appointment by President Museveni had therefore generated excitement among supporters who believed his experience in management and leadership would inject fresh ideas into government.However, critics questioned whether an academic administrator with no previous political experience was the right fit for the sensitive Internal Affairs portfolio.Those debates have now been overtaken by the citizenship controversy.

What Next For Muganga?

Political observers say the rejection does not necessarily mark the end of Muganga’s public service ambitions.Legal experts note that while certain offices remain restricted, there are other government positions that dual citizens may legally occupy.Some analysts believe President Museveni could consider him for another role that does not fall within the restricted category.Others argue that the episode may actually boost Muganga’s public profile by portraying him as a victim of technical legal barriers rather than political opposition. For now, however, his ministerial dream remains on hold.

A Lesson For Future Nominees

The rejection of Lawrence Muganga has become one of the biggest stories emerging from the latest cabinet vetting exercise.It serves as a reminder that while Uganda welcomes dual citizenship, the law still draws clear boundaries regarding who can occupy certain strategic offices.As Parliament continues to scrutinize presidential nominees, the message appears unmistakable: qualifications, popularity and presidential confidence alone are not enough.For anyone seeking to occupy sensitive state offices, compliance with citizenship requirements remains non-negotiable.And for Dr. Lawrence Muganga, a man who inspired many Ugandans through education and innovation, the road to Cabinet has been abruptly blocked by a legal provision many citizens barely knew existed until now.

A Lesson for Future Nominees

Meanwhile, the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU) has dismissed claims circulating on social media that Muganga’s rejection was linked to his ethnic background or alleged anti-Rwandan sentiments within Parliament. PLU Secretary General Daudi Kabanda said the Appointments Committee’s decision was based entirely on citizenship-related concerns and not on Muganga’s identity as a Munyarwanda. Kabanda noted that several Ugandan leaders of Rwandan heritage, including Ministers Aisha Ssekindi and Diana Mutasingwa, have previously been vetted and approved by Parliament without controversy. According to Kabanda, committee investigations reportedly established that Muganga held Ugandan, Canadian and Rwandan passports despite denying possession of a Rwandan passport during the vetting process. “The claim that he was rejected because he is a Munyarwanda is false, misleading and dangerous,” Kabanda said, arguing that the controversy should be viewed as a matter of legal compliance rather than ethnicity. His remarks added a fresh dimension to the debate, reinforcing Parliament’s position that citizenship requirements for sensitive public offices remain a critical consideration regardless of a nominee’s professional achievements or background.

The Appointments Committee, chaired by Speaker Jacob Marksons Oboth and deputised by Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa, began scrutinising ministerial nominees appointed by President Museveni last week as part of his new government lineup for the 2026–2031 term.The exercise attracted a host of senior political figures, including Vice President-designate Jessica Alupo and Prime Minister-designate Robinah Nabbanja, whose appointments had earlier received parliamentary approval. Also drawing attention were First Deputy Prime Minister-designate Rebecca Kadaga, Second Deputy Prime Minister-designate Crispus Kiyonga and Third Deputy Prime Minister-designate Lukia Nakadama.

Several veteran ministers and political heavyweights were also present as they sought Parliament’s endorsement to continue serving in Cabinet.Opposition legislators closely monitored the proceedings, with Leader of Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi taking part in the vetting sessions as a member of the committee.

Speaking shortly after his appearance, Tumwebaze said the discussions centred on his plans for Uganda’s agriculture sector, which remains the backbone of the country’s economy.”I had a good interaction with the Appointments Committee as they carried out their constitutional duty of vetting and assessing the suitability of ministerial appointees,” he said.Tumwebaze thanked Speaker Oboth, Deputy Speaker Tayebwa, Opposition Leader Ssenyonyi and other committee members for what he described as a cordial and collegial engagement.

The minister-designate also used the occasion to thank President Museveni for once again entrusting him with public office.”Once again, I thank H.E. President Museveni for giving me the opportunity to continue serving my country in the biggest sector of our economy—Agriculture,” Tumwebaze noted.Inside Parliament, security remained tight as ministers moved in and out of the committee rooms for the closed-door sessions. Sources indicated that most of the nominees are expected to sail through the process owing to their extensive government experience and the ruling NRM’s numerical strength in Parliament.The vetting exercise follows Parliament’s approval of an expanded Cabinet structure, increasing the number of Cabinet ministers and ministers of state to accommodate the new administration.Political analysts say the process is a crucial constitutional requirement intended to assess the competence, integrity and suitability of presidential appointees before they formally assume office

.

While many of the nominees are seasoned politicians, observers expect Parliament to use the sessions to seek accountability on government performance, service delivery and policy implementation in key sectors such as agriculture, health, education and infrastructure.

For Tumwebaze, the spotlight remains on whether he can accelerate agricultural transformation, boost farmer incomes and expand export markets at a time when the sector continues to face challenges ranging from climate change to fluctuating commodity prices.

The Appointments Committee is expected to continue vetting additional ministers throughout the week before forwarding its recommendations for approval.As the political drama unfolds behind Parliament’s doors, all eyes remain on which new faces will make it into Cabinet and whether any surprise objections emerge during the scrutiny process.

MPs Lose Patience

Several legislators have openly questioned how a project that was initially expected to take only a few years has dragged on for nearly a decade.Members of Parliament sitting on oversight committees recently demanded answers after reports showed that construction progress remains far below expected levels despite substantial government funding. According to findings cited in the Auditor General’s report, the project is significantly behind schedule, with completion estimates repeatedly revised.Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee members reportedly expressed concern that parliamentary authorities themselves appear uncertain about when the building will actually be completed.

Outgoing Budget Committee Chairperson Patrick Isiagi Opolot was quoted raising concerns that corruption could be one of the factors behind the prolonged delays, saying Parliament must establish what exactly has gone wrong.Other MPs argue that the delays have embarrassed Parliament, an institution tasked with holding other government agencies accountable.“How can Parliament demand accountability from ministries and agencies when its own building project has remained unfinished for years?” one legislator reportedly asked during discussions on the matter.

A Project Haunted by Delays

The construction of the new chambers began in 2017 after Parliament determined that the existing chamber had become too small for the growing number of legislators.Uganda’s current parliamentary chamber was originally designed in the 1950s to accommodate fewer than 100 legislators. Today, Parliament has more than 500 members, creating serious space challenges.

The new facility was expected to solve the problem by providing seating for hundreds of MPs as well as additional office space and support facilities. However, almost from the start, the project encountered obstacles.Early delays were blamed on difficulties in securing land documentation, design adjustments and relocation of major utility infrastructure around the construction site.Later, Parliament approved changes to the design, including plans for additional facilities such as a museum and expanded seating capacity, leading to further interruptions.Despite assurances from the contractor that lost time would be recovered, the project continued to miss completion deadlines.

Billions Spent, Questions Remain

The most troubling issue for legislators is the amount of money already invested. Reports indicate that more than Shs263 billion has so far been spent on the project, with the overall cost continuing to rise as construction timelines are extended.The Auditor General reportedly found that while the project should have reached nearly 70 percent completion during the review period, actual progress stood at around 49 percent.The completion date has reportedly been shifted multiple times, with the latest projections now stretching to 2027.  For many MPs, those figures are unacceptable.

Roko Under Intense Scrutiny

The spotlight has inevitably fallen on Roko Construction Limited, one of Uganda’s largest indigenous construction companies.The company has in recent years faced significant financial difficulties, prompting government intervention.In 2022, the government approved a controversial bailout package involving the purchase of preference shares worth more than Shs200 billion to keep the company afloat and protect ongoing public infrastructure projects.However, some legislators now argue that despite the financial rescue, several major projects under Roko continue to suffer delays.Apart from the parliamentary chambers, critics have pointed to concerns surrounding other government-funded projects associated with the contractor.This has led some MPs to ask whether Parliament should continue entrusting public projects to a contractor that repeatedly fails to meet deadlines.

Parliament Changes Payment System

Faced with mounting criticism, parliamentary authorities have already taken extraordinary measures. Last year former Speaker Anita Among revealed that Parliament had suspended direct payments to Roko and instead adopted a system where funds are paid directly to suppliers and service providers involved in the construction works.The move was intended to improve transparency and ensure that public funds directly support construction activities rather than disappear into administrative bottlenecks.The Speaker has also warned that terminating the contract outright could create even bigger fin

Public Anger Growing

Outside Parliament, many Ugandans are increasingly questioning why major government projects routinely exceed deadlines and budgets.The stalled chambers project has become a frequent topic of discussion on social media, where critics argue that taxpayers deserve clear explanations regarding how public money has been spent.Transparency activists say the project highlights broader weaknesses in project supervision, procurement processes and contractor management within government institutions.With Uganda facing demands for better healthcare, roads, schools and job creation, many citizens wonder whether billions tied up in unfinished projects represent value for money.

What Happens Next?

Parliament now faces a critical decision. Some legislators want the contract reviewed and potentially terminated if investigators establish negligence or mismanagement.Others fear that replacing the contractor midway could create legal disputes and further delays, ultimately costing taxpayers even more. For now, the demand for a probe appears to be gathering momentum.If Parliament proceeds with a full investigation, officials from Roko, parliamentary administrators, project consultants and government ministries could all be summoned to explain how a project launched with optimism became one of Uganda’s most controversial construction ventures.Until then, the unfinished structure standing beside Parliament remains a visible reminder of the growing gap between project promises and project delivery

The Shs68 Billion Document That Set Off Alarm Bells

At the centre of the controversy is a document attributed to civil society organisation AGORA under the banner “Uganda Parliament Exhibition II.”The document allegedly lists more than Shs68 billion that reportedly passed through various parliamentary staff members and parliamentary structures between 2023 and 2026.The single biggest entry is recorded as Parliamentary Commission Operations, which allegedly received nearly Shs39 billion.The remaining amounts are linked to individual names, with some entries running into billions of shillings.

Among the largest figures listed are:

Leonard Okema – Shs5.51 billion

Ranny Ismail – Shs4.45 billion

Chris Obore – Shs3.22 billion

Daniel Adilo – Shs2.95 billion

Kaaya Raja Semalulu – Shs2.41 billion

Perhaps most puzzling is an entry labelled simply “No Name” carrying an allocation of more than Shs1 billion. The figures have left many Ugandans asking a simple question: Where exactly did all this money go?

Denials Deepen The Mystery

What has made the controversy even more intriguing are claims that some of the individuals whose names appear on the document allegedly denied ever receiving the money attributed to them.If those claims are true, investigators face several difficult questions.

Were payments wrongly recorded?

Were names used as conduits for operational transactions?

Did the money reach different beneficiaries?

Or are the records themselves inaccurate?

Without access to payment vouchers, bank statements, approval documents and accountability reports, the public is left guessing. And in a country where public finance scandals have repeatedly made headlines, suspicion naturally fills the information vacuum.

Is The Among Probe Missing The Bigger Picture?

While public attention has largely focused on Speaker Anita Among, critics argue that concentrating investigations on a single office risks creating the impression of selective accountability.Political analysts note that Parliament is a large institution with numerous departments, commissions and administrative structures.If questionable transactions occurred, they argue, responsibility cannot automatically be narrowed to one office without first examining the broader system through which funds were approved, processed and disbursed.This perception of selective scrutiny has fuelled accusations that the ongoing investigations may be more political than institutional. For many observers, the test of credibility will be whether every office implicated by available records receives equal scrutiny.

Recruitment Questions Refuse To Go Away

The controversy does not stop at money. Fresh questions are also emerging about recruitment practices within the Parliamentary Service.Critics have questioned whether all positions filled since the start of the 11th Parliament followed legally required procedures, including public advertisement of vacancies and competitive recruitment processes.Documents circulating online have listed dozens of individuals said to be employed in different parliamentary offices, including some attached to the Office of the Deputy Speaker.The publication of these names has intensified calls for Parliament to disclose how vacancies were advertised, how interviews were conducted and how successful candidates were selected.

What Forensic Auditors Would Look For

Financial experts caution against drawing conclusions solely from lists of names and figures. According to auditors, proving wrongdoing requires much more than a spreadsheet.

Investigators would need access to:

Bank transaction records

Payment vouchers

Procurement documents

Internal approval memos

Accountability reports

Payroll databases

Audit findings

Only then can investigators establish whether money was properly authorised, correctly accounted for and delivered to its intended purpose.In many institutions, officials sign for operational funds on behalf of departments, projects or committees rather than for personal benefit.That distinction could prove critical in determining whether any laws were broken.

Public Trust On The Line

The controversy arrives at a time when public confidence in government institutions is already under pressure.Good governance advocates argue that Parliament, as the nation’s law-making body, should set the highest standards of transparency.They insist that citizens deserve clear explanations whenever large sums of public money are involved.For them, the issue goes beyond Anita Among, individual parliamentary officials or political rivalries. It is about whether taxpayers can trust the systems designed to safeguard public resources.

The Questions That Won’t Go Away

Until independent investigators verify the authenticity of the leaked documents and examine the supporting records, the allegations remain just that—allegations.Yet the sheer scale of the figures involved means the matter is unlikely to disappear.

Ugandans want answers.

Why do some names appear against billions of shillings?

What exactly was covered under Parliamentary Commission Operations?

Why are some recipients allegedly denying the transactions?

And perhaps most importantly, why do investigations appear focused on a few individuals while broader questions about Parliament’s financial and recruitment systems remain unresolved?Until those questions are answered, many citizens will continue to view the Anita Among probe not as a full investigation—but as an incomplete story.

By Investigative Desk

The President’s Fury

According to highly placed sources, Museveni became increasingly irritated after receiving intelligence reports that billions meant for maintaining Uganda’s national CCTV surveillance system had become trapped in a web of kickbacks, delayed approvals, and internal sabotage.“The President was very angry,” said a source familiar with the investigations. “He felt embarrassed because this is a security project he personally championed after the wave of assassinations and murders in the country.”The CCTV project, originally installed with heavy involvement from Chinese technology giant Huawei, became one of Museveni’s prized security investments after high-profile killings rocked Kampala between 2017 and 2019.The system was supposed to modernize crime detection and help security agencies monitor criminal networks. Billions were pumped into the project, and the President repeatedly defended the massive expenditure.

The Shs31 Billion Mystery

However, insiders now say the maintenance contracts became a feeding ground for powerful officials.At the centre of the storm is Dealan Associates Ltd, a contractor reportedly tasked with maintaining parts of the surveillance system after Huawei’s operational involvement reduced following international sanctions complications in 2019.According to preliminary findings, the Ministry of Finance released Shs31.37 billion intended for the contractor’s payment. But despite the money being available, the payments allegedly stalled mysteriously.Investigators now suspect that some officials allegedly demanded huge kickbacks before authorizing the release of the funds.A middleman identified as Hassan Serunjoji has reportedly become a key figure in the investigations. Sources claim he acted as the go-between in secret negotiations involving bribes linked to the stalled payments.The allegations have since triggered panic within the Internal Affairs Ministry and police leadership.

Why Musanyufu’s Name Shocked Many

For many Ugandans, however, the biggest shock is seeing Gen. Joseph Musanyufu dragged into the scandal.Musanyufu has long been viewed as one of Museveni’s most trusted technocrats — a disciplined military officer who rose through the ranks quietly without the political drama associated with many powerful figures. Yet insiders say the President was furious that such allegations could emerge under his watch.One source compared Museveni’s reaction to “chasing a village chicken thief.” “The President felt betrayed,” the source said. “He believed these are people who should protect public resources, not fight over commissions.”The forced leave announcement was delivered with unusual urgency, signaling that Museveni wanted immediate distance between the suspects and government operations as investigations intensify.

Aggrey Wunyi Under Pressure

Dr. Aggrey Wunyi’s role has attracted particular attention because of his powerful position as Undersecretary in charge of Police finances and support services.As accounting officer, Wunyi oversees procurement, budgeting, financial approvals, and logistical support within the Uganda Police Force — one of the country’s largest spending institutions.Investigators reportedly believe that key payment approvals linked to the CCTV maintenance contract passed through offices under his supervision.AIGP Felix Baryamwitsaki, another senior officer placed on leave, is also under scrutiny over his alleged involvement in decisions surrounding the surveillance system operations and contract management.

Public Anger Grows

But while State House appears determined to present the crackdown as proof of Museveni’s commitment to fighting corruption, many Ugandans remain skeptical. On social media and radio talk shows, citizens have been asking tough questions. Why forced leave instead of arrests?Why are small thieves quickly jailed while powerful officials are merely “rested” at home? And perhaps most importantly — are these the real masterminds, or just sacrificial lambs?Critics argue that corruption within government procurement systems has become too deeply rooted to involve only a few individuals. “This cannot happen without protection from very powerful people,” one political analyst said.Others believe the President may be trying to calm growing public anger over corruption scandals that continue to erupt despite repeated anti-corruption speeches.

National Security Fears

In recent years, Uganda has witnessed scandal after scandal involving billions of taxpayer money disappearing through inflated contracts, ghost procurements, and dubious compensation claims. The CCTV scandal is particularly sensitive because it touches directly on national security.Security experts warn that any disruption in maintaining the surveillance system could weaken crime detection capabilities across major urban centres.Already, insiders claim sections of the CCTV infrastructure have reportedly suffered technical failures due to delayed maintenance and disputes over payments.If true, this raises serious concerns about whether corruption may have compromised public safety itself.

More Big Names Could Emerge

Meanwhile, sources say investigators are now examining bank transactions, procurement records, and communication between officials and private contractors.More names could reportedly emerge as the probe deepens.

Inside government circles, tension is rising.

Some officials fear the scandal could expose a much larger network involving procurement cartels that operate quietly across ministries and security agencies.Others suspect the forced leave could simply be the beginning of a political survival battle among rival power centres within the state.

Will This Case Go Anywhere?

For now, Museveni appears determined to project authority and control. But whether the investigations will end in real prosecutions — or fade away like many previous scandals — remains the million-dollar question.Ugandans have seen dramatic anti-corruption announcements before, only for cases to disappear quietly once public attention shifts elsewhere.Still, the image of powerful men suddenly pushed aside has captured public imagination.For many ordinary citizens struggling with poverty and unemployment, the scandal represents a painful reminder of how billions meant for national development can allegedly vanish through elite corruption networks.As investigators continue digging into the Shs31 billion CCTV saga, one thing is already clear: the battle inside Uganda’s security and political establishment is far from over.And for Gen. Joseph Musanyufu, the once-trusted insider now finds himself at the centre of a storm that could redefine his legacy forever.

By Our Investigations Desk

FROM TRUSTED GENERAL TO STATE TARGET

Dual citizens are prohibited

According to Uganda’s Citizenship and Immigration Control Act, dual citizens are prohibited from holding certain offices of state unless they fully comply with legal requirements governing citizenship status. Section 19D and the Fifth Schedule of the Act specifically restrict dual citizens from serving as Cabinet ministers and other ministers.A petition submitted to Parliament on May 29 by a group identifying itself as “Concerned Citizens of Uganda” argues that Muganga’s appointment violates these provisions.“The appointment should be rejected to uphold the Constitution, protect Uganda’s sovereignty and defend public safety,” the petition states.The petitioners are demanding that Parliament establish “conclusively” whether Muganga qualifies to hold office under Article 10 of the Constitution, which governs citizenship by birth, and under the provisions of the Citizenship Act.Questions have also emerged regarding Muganga’s acquisition of Ugandan citizenship. Critics claim that he only formally registered for Ugandan citizenship in 2024 and reportedly received a Ugandan passport on February 26, 2026. If true, opponents argue that this timeline raises serious legal and constitutional concerns about his eligibility for ministerial office.

Ties with Rwanda

The petition further alleges that Muganga previously held Canadian citizenship and may also have ties to Rwanda. Some critics claim he possesses three citizenships — Ugandan, Canadian, and Rwandan — though no official government confirmation has been publicly released regarding these allegations.The controversy has revived memories of Muganga’s dramatic arrest in 2021, when he was detained by Ugandan security forces over accusations linked to espionage.In September 2021, Muganga was reportedly abducted at gunpoint by security operatives in Kampala. At the time, reports circulated widely on social media claiming he had been kidnapped. However, then-military spokesperson Brig. Gen. Flavia Byekwaso dismissed those claims.“He was arrested by joint security forces in connection with espionage and illegal stay in the country,” Byekwaso said at the time.The arrest generated significant public attention because Muganga was serving as Vice Chancellor of Victoria University and had established a strong public profile in Uganda’s education sector. Although he was later released, the allegations surrounding espionage were never fully clarified in the public domain.

Controversy

Critics of his ministerial appointment now argue that the unresolved security concerns make his nomination particularly controversial, especially given the sensitive nature of the Internal Affairs ministry, which oversees immigration, national identification systems, and internal security coordination.“How tables turn,” one political commentator remarked online. “The same man once arrested by security agencies over espionage allegations is now being appointed to supervise the same institutions that investigated him.”Some petitioners have also cited allegations previously made by Rwandan-Canadian academic and government critic David Himbara, who accused Muganga of involvement in covert Rwandan intelligence operations. However, no Ugandan court has convicted Muganga of espionage or intelligence-related offenses.The petitioners are nevertheless calling for investigations by multiple security agencies, including the Internal Security Organisation (ISO), External Security Organisation (ESO), Uganda Police Force, and immigration authorities.“Uganda deserves leaders whose loyalty and legal standing are unquestionable,” the petition states.

Muhoozi outbursts 

The debate has also become politically charged due to recent public statements by General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the Chief of Defence Forces and son of President Museveni. Critics referenced comments allegedly posted on Muhoozi’s X account, where he claimed to have removed certain UPDF officers from the Ministry of Internal Affairs for allegedly refusing to issue passports to Rwandans.Those claims have fueled speculation among critics who argue that Muganga’s appointment could be linked to broader regional and political interests. Some opponents have gone further, alleging that he was appointed specifically to influence immigration and passport issuance policies. However, no official evidence has been presented publicly to substantiate those accusations.

The controversy comes at a time when national sovereignty and foreign influence remain highly sensitive political issues in Uganda. Following Muganga’s 2021 arrest, Parliament passed legislation aimed at strengthening protections against foreign interference in Uganda’s internal affairs.Critics now argue that appointing an individual previously investigated over alleged foreign links undermines the spirit of those reforms.Others, however, view the attacks against Muganga as politically motivated and xenophobic. Supporters argue that Muganga is a respected academic and administrator who has contributed significantly to Uganda’s education sector through his leadership at Victoria University.Following his appointment, Muganga publicly thanked President Museveni for the confidence placed in him. “I pledge to serve with humility, honesty and a deep sense of duty,” he said.His supporters also note that no court has found him guilty of espionage or any crime related to national security.

They argue that allegations circulating online remain unproven and should not be used to deny him public office without due process.Still, the pressure on Parliament’s Appointments Committee continues to grow as legal activists, opposition figures, and sections of the public demand greater scrutiny of the appointment.The committee is now expected to examine several key questions before deciding whether to approve Muganga’s nomination. Among them are whether he legally qualifies as a Ugandan citizen by birth, whether he lawfully renounced any foreign citizenships, and whether unresolved national security concerns should affect his eligibility for office.The latest petition follows earlier legal challenges filed by citizens and activists who argued that Uganda’s dual citizenship laws explicitly prohibit dual citizens from serving as ministers unless they fully comply with all legal requirements.As Parliament prepares to vet the nominee, the controversy surrounding Dr. Lawrence Muganga’s appointment has evolved into a broader national debate about citizenship, loyalty, national security, and the integrity of public office in Uganda.For many observers, the outcome of the vetting process could set an important precedent for how Uganda handles questions of dual citizenship and eligibility for high-ranking government positions in the future.

“My beloved son, Ruhamya, is doing an excellent job in Sandhurst. All good Ugandans should pray for him every day,” Muhoozi posted on his X account.The post was accompanied by photographs showing Private Ruhamya dressed in combat gear alongside fellow officer cadets during a military field exercise at the academy.In another post that quickly attracted attention online, Muhoozi shared side-by-side images comparing his own training days at Sandhurst nearly three decades ago with those of his son today. “Father and son going through the same hardships. Separated by 27 years. God bless Ruhamya,” he wrote.The development means that Ruhamya Kainerugaba becomes the fourth member of President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni’s family to formally join the military.

The family’s military legacy began with President Museveni himself, who led the National Resistance Army (NRA) bush war that brought the NRM government to power in 1986. Museveni’s younger brother, Gen Caleb Akandwanaho, commonly known as Salim Saleh, also became one of Uganda’s most influential military commanders.Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba later followed the same path when he joined the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) in 1999 as an Officer Cadet before rising through the ranks to become Chief of Defence Forces.Now, with Ruhamya undergoing military training at Sandhurst, another generation of the family is continuing the military tradition.

The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst remains one of the world’s most respected military training institutions. The academy has trained senior military officers, royals, presidents, and influential leaders from different parts of the world.Among its notable alumni are former army chief of staff Gen Oyite Ojok, Brig Gen Mark Ayiasi Kodili, British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill, Jordan’s King Abdullah II, former Botswana President Ian Khama, former Nigerian Head of State Yakubu Gowon, and the late Sultan Qaboos of Oman.

Members of the British Royal Family, including Prince William and Prince Harry, also trained at Sandhurst before beginning their military careers.Military analysts often describe Sandhurst as a symbol of discipline, leadership, endurance, and elite officer training.The photos shared by Muhoozi generated widespread reactions online, with many supporters describing the moment as a continuation of service, patriotism, and military leadership within Uganda’s First Family.

According to insiders familiar with the ongoing developments, several employees recruited during the tenure of former Speaker Anita Annet Among are among those likely to be affected. Sources claim the new administration is reviewing appointments believed to have bypassed established procedures or inflated the parliamentary wage bill.“Oboth-Oboth is determined to make sweeping changes at Parliament. Many workers are nervous, while others have already started quietly clearing their offices and taking away personal belongings because they fear what is coming,” a source familiar with the developments revealed.The source added that the atmosphere within Parliament has become tense, with many officials uncertain about their future as investigations into alleged corruption and abuse of office continue behind closed doors.Among the departments reportedly under intense scrutiny is the Directorate of Communications headed by veteran journalist Chris Obore. Other departments expected to face restructuring include logistics and transport, the Clerk to Parliament’s office and the human resource directorate.Sources say the communications department has particularly attracted attention because of its strategic role within Parliament and the influence wielded by top officials attached to it.

Bottleneck

However, Oboth-Oboth is said to be facing a delicate balancing act as many of the officials targeted in the restructuring exercise are already on permanent and pensionable terms, meaning any dismissals could come with heavy financial implications for taxpayers.Labour experts warn that terminating contracts without following due process could expose Parliament to costly compensation claims and prolonged legal battles.“Restructuring workers at such a high level comes with significant financial consequences because many of the affected staff are protected under existing labour laws and contractual obligations,” a labour and financial expert explained.“Unless there is concrete evidence directly linking individuals to financial loss or abuse of office, dismissals could become complicated and expensive.”Sources within Parliament also pointed to previous attempts to discipline senior officials that ended unsuccessfully because of contractual protections.

One source cited the case involving Chris Obore during the tenure of former Speaker Rebecca Kadaga, when he was reportedly suspended but continued earning his salary because his employment contract remained valid.“The last time Rebecca Kadaga suspended Chris Obore, he continued earning his salary because he had a running contract. I don’t think Oboth-Oboth wants to repeat the same mistake,” the source said.

Investigations

Security and investigative agencies are also understood to be playing a central role in the ongoing review process. A security source close to the investigations told The Investigator that any suspensions or dismissals will largely depend on the outcome of ongoing inquiries into alleged financial impropriety.“We are still investigating several officials and gathering evidence. So far, there are strong indications that could lead to suspensions or expulsions if individuals are implicated in causing financial loss to the Government of Uganda,” the source revealed.The official added that investigators are examining procurement processes, recruitment procedures and expenditure patterns within various parliamentary departments.The restructuring comes at a time when Parliament has increasingly faced criticism from the public over allegations of corruption, excessive spending and abuse of taxpayer resources.Public anger intensified in recent months following reports linking some parliamentary officials and legislators to questionable expenditure and irregular allocation of public funds.

Political analysts believe Oboth Oboth’s reform agenda is intended not only to restore confidence in Parliament but also to signal a new era of accountability within one of the country’s most powerful institutions.Since assuming office, Oboth-Oboth has publicly positioned himself as a leader determined to restore discipline, professionalism and transparency in Parliament.In one of his strongest public remarks since taking over leadership of the House, Oboth-Oboth pledged to preside over a corruption-free Parliament and warned against misuse of public office.“It is time to clean the mess. We are here to work. The Speaker’s chair is not a throne; it is a servant post,” Oboth-Oboth said while addressing legislators and parliamentary staff.“My role now is to come before you and ensure that, working together, the voices of the over 48 million Ugandans who sent us to this House are heard, protected and respected,” he added.Observers say his remarks were widely interpreted as a signal that major administrative and operational changes were imminent.However, critics argue that reforming Parliament will require more than dismissals and suspensions. Some governance experts insist that institutional corruption can only be addressed through systemic reforms, stronger oversight mechanisms and enforcement of procurement and recruitment regulations.

Others caution that the restructuring exercise could trigger political and legal resistance from affected officials, especially if the process is perceived as selective or politically motivated.Despite the uncertainty surrounding the fate of several parliamentary employees, sources insist the Speaker remains committed to carrying out reforms aimed at restoring integrity within the institution.For now, tension continues to grip the corridors of Parliament as employees anxiously await the outcome of investigations that could determine the future of some of the institution’s most influential officials.Whether the planned restructuring will deliver genuine accountability or ignite fresh controversy remains to be seen, but what is increasingly clear is that a storm is gathering within Uganda’s August House.

The outspoken journalist also apologised to businessmen Dei Pharma founder Dr Matthias Magoola, and herbalist David Senfuka, whom he had previously described as “conmen” and “witch doctors” during a heated debate over government-backed industrial projects.“So, I want to apologise to the President and also to Magoola and Senfuka. I was unfair to them when I called them conmen and witch doctors,” Mwenda stated. “It is utterly unjustified to insult someone that way. That framing undermined the policy argument I was making.”He further reflected on the tone of his criticism, saying it fell below the standards he expects of himself as a journalist and public intellectual.

“I always advise young people that we can disagree without being disagreeable. I feel bad that I wrote in such bad language, like a political activist rather than the journalist and intellectual I aspire to be,” he added.Mwenda’s apology followed a strongly worded response from President Museveni, who accused the journalist of promoting neo-colonial thinking and undermining Uganda’s industrialisation agenda. In his response, Museveni defended his government’s economic policies and dismissed claims that age had diminished his leadership abilities.“You will discover that at 82, I am still able to defend Uganda and myself with the Bible, the AK-47 and the pen,” Museveni declared.

The President criticised Mwenda and other members of the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU), accusing them of attacking local industrial initiatives such as Kiira Motors, coffee processing, gold refining and agro-industrialisation projects.  “You are supposed to be a journalist. Why do you not interview these so-called conmen such as Magoola and Senfuka? Visit their factories and projects before spreading lies,” Museveni said.Museveni also accused critics within pro-government circles of attempting to weaken Uganda’s economic transformation efforts by promoting foreign interests over local industrial development.Meanwhile, senior government spokesperson Ofwono Opondo warned PLU activists against what he described as “reckless political arrogance” and attacks on the President.“Politics is not abuse,” Opondo reportedly said. “You cannot build leadership by insulting the historical leadership that stabilised Uganda.”

The fallout has exposed growing tensions within Uganda’s ruling establishment ahead of the 2026 general elections, with analysts pointing to widening divisions between supporters of President Museveni and figures associated with the PLU movement linked to Muhoozi Kainerugaba.Despite the controversy, President Museveni remained defiant, reaffirming his commitment to patriotism, Pan-Africanism, socio-economic transformation and democracy.“As a freedom fighter, I am always standing for patriotism, Pan-Africanism, socio-economic transformation and democracy,” Museveni said. “I am never swayed by traitors and foreign agents.” He concluded his remarks with his signature revolutionary slogan: “Aluta Continua. Victory is Certain.”

Second chance

The election cemented Tayebwa’s influence within the ruling establishment and handed him a second chance after weeks of speculation that both he and former Speaker Anita Annet Among were facing possible political isolation over allegations of corruption and extravagant living.Highly placed sources within political circles claim that last month, Tayebwa was quietly tipped off by allies linked to the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU) that President Yoweri Museveni had become increasingly uncomfortable with the growing influence of powerful figures in Parliament.According to insiders, intelligence reports allegedly submitted to the President accused Among of building a powerful political network capable of influencing future state decisions. The dossier reportedly claimed that some members within the Electoral Commission worked closely with parliamentary power brokers to ensure the election of MPs loyal to the Speaker’s camp during the last general elections.“A lot of money exchanged hands towards the election period. Most MPs who remained loyal to Among easily secured their seats,” a source familiar with the intelligence brief claimed.

Sources further allege that Tayebwa was advised by close associates to distance himself from the excesses associated with Parliament’s leadership before it was too late. Unlike some of his colleagues accused of displaying flashy lifestyles, Tayebwa reportedly maintained a more cautious public image, something insiders say helped him survive the political storm.Political analysts now believe Tayebwa’s ability to navigate the dangerous internal battles within the ruling establishment may have earned him another opportunity to remain at the centre of power.

Capitulation

During his acceptance remarks after the vote, Tayebwa appeared to acknowledge growing public anger directed at Parliament over corruption allegations and misuse of public resources.“There is where we went beyond,” Tayebwa admitted in comments that have since gone viral on social media and political talk shows across the country.The statement has been interpreted by critics as a rare confession from a senior parliamentary leader that the 11th Parliament had lost public trust because of corruption scandals and excessive spending. In another striking statement during his speech, Tayebwa openly admitted that Parliament requires serious internal reforms.“I know all the corners of the House. I know where we need to clean up. I know where we need to maintain the status quo,” Tayebwa declared shortly after his election victory.The remarks immediately sparked intense debate, with some interpreting them as a signal that the Deputy Speaker is aware of deep-rooted problems within Parliament and may now be under pressure to act.

Rebuilding confidence

In his speech, Tayebwa promised Ugandans that the new Parliament would focus on rebuilding confidence among citizens and restoring discipline in the management of public funds.“I want to assure Ugandans that we have heard your concerns. We must change the way we work and become more accountable to the people,” Tayebwa told legislators shortly after his victory.

However, his apology has divided opinion across the political divide, with critics arguing that saying sorry is not enough without accountability.Political commentator Robert Mugisha questioned whether public apologies can repair the damage caused by years of corruption allegations surrounding Parliament.“Tayebwa admitting that mistakes were made is significant, but many Ugandans are asking whether apologies alone are enough. People want to see consequences and real reforms,” Mugisha said.Others within opposition circles insist that Parliament’s image remains badly damaged despite Tayebwa’s promises of change.Supporters of the Deputy Speaker, however, argue that his willingness to publicly acknowledge mistakes demonstrates political maturity and could signal a fresh beginning for the institution.The nomination of Tayebwa was formally moved by Nebbi District Woman MP Phiona Nyamutoro and seconded by Buvuma Islands MP Robert Migadde.

Moments after the results were announced, supporters inside and outside Parliament erupted into celebration, with many PLU loyalists hailing the victory as proof that Tayebwa remains a trusted figure within the ruling movement despite recent controversies.“Our PLU diehard, Rt. Hon. Thomas Tayebwa, has been elected Deputy Speaker with 457 votes. Big congratulations TT,” one celebratory message from supporters read shortly after the announcement.The scale of Tayebwa’s victory also exposed the deep numerical weakness of the opposition within the House, with government-backed candidates once again dominating key parliamentary positions.Insiders say Tayebwa’s next challenge will be convincing ordinary Ugandans that the 12th Parliament can avoid the scandals that haunted its predecessor. Public frustration over allegations of lavish spending, service awards and unexplained expenditure severely damaged the image of the 11th Parliament, especially during a period when many citizens struggled with rising living costs.Now, with the instruments of power set to be officially handed over in a ceremony presided over by President Museveni, all eyes are on whether Tayebwa can truly deliver the reforms he is promising.For some Ugandans, his apology was a necessary first step. For others, it was simply political survival.But one thing is certain: the man many believed was politically finished has returned stronger than ever, armed with overwhelming support from MPs and a renewed promise to clean up Parliament from within.Whether that promise survives the harsh realities of Ugandan politics remains the billion-shilling question.