Chris Obore, the Director of Communication and Public Affairs at Parliament, addressed the recent sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom on high-ranking Ugandan politicians, including Speaker of Parliament Anita Annet Among and two former ministers. Obore asserted that Uganda possesses institutions to handle corruption allegations internally and emphasized that none of these institutions had found Speaker Among guilty of corruption. He characterized the allegations as politically motivated.
The sanctions were announced by UK’s Deputy Foreign Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, targeting individuals accused of corruption, including ministers recently removed from cabinet positions. Obore claimed that the Speaker was singled out due to her stance on the Anti-Homosexuality Law and argued that the sanctions were unrelated to corruption charges regarding the distribution of iron sheets.
Obore criticized the UK’s interference in Uganda’s internal affairs, alleging that the sanctions reflected foreign intervention in local politics. He maintained that the distribution of iron sheets, cited as a basis for the sanctions, was a pretext to conceal the true motivation, which he attributed to the Speaker’s position on the Anti-Homosexuality Act.
Responding to social media criticism of Parliament’s defense, Obore reiterated that the Speaker had not been charged with corruption, as stated in the UK government’s announcement. He contended that the allegations lacked evidence and accused the UK of attempting to influence Ugandan politics to align with their values.
Users on Social Platform X expressed criticism towards Parliament’s response to the UK sanctions. One user, Luyimbazi, highlighted discrepancies between Parliament’s interpretation and the UK government’s statement. Luyimbazi argued that Parliament’s communication did not accurately reflect the content of the UK government’s announcement. They pointed out that the UK statement explicitly mentioned corruption charges against Speaker Among and the two former ministers, Mary Goretti Kitutu and Agnes Nandutu. According to Luyimbazi, Parliament’s defense failed to acknowledge these charges, indicating a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the situation.
Another user, Nelly Mbabazi, directed their criticism towards Parliament’s leadership, accusing them of personal enrichment. Mbabazi insinuated corruption within the institution, suggesting that Speaker Among and her associates had benefited financially from their positions. This allegation further fueled skepticism regarding Parliament’s response to the sanctions.
Additionally, James Kakeeto questioned the sincerity of individuals who claim to be unaffected by sanctions yet express concern over them. Kakeeto argued that if the sanctions were truly insignificant, those affected should simply ignore them instead of publicly reacting. This perspective challenged the authenticity of Parliament’s defense against the sanctions, implying that their response may be driven by underlying concerns or vulnerabilities.
Overall, the comments from Social Platform X underscored skepticism and distrust towards Parliament’s handling of the UK sanctions. Users questioned the accuracy of Parliament’s statements, raised allegations of corruption, and criticized the sincerity of their response. These criticisms reflect a broader sentiment of scrutiny and accountability within the public discourse surrounding political actions and statements.
